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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6odwz4
|
; how is intersectional feminism different to the feminism i grew up with?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6odwz4/eli5_how_is_intersectional_feminism_different_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkgoox7",
"dkgpqzp"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Intersectional feminism recognizes that there are different types of sexism experienced by people in different situations. Lesbians experience different issues than straight women. Able-bodied women experience different issues than disabled women. Black women experience different issues than Hispanic or white women.\n\nAnd those issues are not just the two aspects combined. There can be different variants, and there can be gestalts -- some of these are more than the sum of their parts.\n\nGenerally, intersectional feminists are also concerned with all the issues that contribute to those gestalts, though obviously each person will have somewhat different priorities.",
"To understand Intersectional Feminism better, we must first understand what intersectionality is. Intersectionality is simply the theory that there are different areas of disadvantage that 'intersect' in any disadvantaged individual. For example, let us consider two women. There's Cory, who's a rich white woman living in California, and there's Anjali, who's an Indian immigrant , who converted to Islam when she was 21, and suffered from poverty all her life. Without understanding intersectionality, it is easy to say that traditional feminism fights for the rights of all women, when in reality, there are different areas of disadvantage that are equally important to one's identity, and white upper-class western women like Cory, while no doubt fighting a noble battle, might be fighting for something very far from what people like Anjali can relate to or even understand.\n\nIntersectional feminism understands this, and understands that that not all people come from the same place. It can be contrasted with white-feminism, which is mainly concerned with the interests of people like Cory, while disregarding the experiences of people like Anjali. Intersectional feminism is, for the first time, spreading this knowledge among the masses, and will hopefully take us to a brighter future where people of all backgrounds can stand together as one people. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1v4oe7
|
how can southpark get away with using words like 'f*ggot' and 'k*ike'?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v4oe7/eli5_how_can_southpark_get_away_with_using_words/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceoonqd",
"ceopaba"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Simple answer: There is no standard in place saying they are not allowed to use those words.",
"South Park is owned by Comedy Central, who are privately owned, as opposed to being a public network like PBS. Because of this, they can play just about anything they want, as long as their advertisers don't disagree with it. If one of their major advertisers were to protest them allowing slurs, then Comedy Central would have to make an internal decision either to censor the show or lose the ad revenue, but they aren't really bound by any outside rules.\n\nThe reason South Park specifically can get away with it is because they are satire and everybody in charge knows it. Their use of slurs are usually to expose a character (Cartman, for example) as a prejudiced asshole, as opposed to trying to hurt or shame a minority group."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
y2p56
|
- how mp3 files work
|
I don't understand how an mp3 file can have a fixed bitrate. for example, a 3 minute file at 256 kbps will be exactly 5760 kilobytes, whether it's of dead silence or a full orchestra. even though the sound waves from the orchestra should contain a lot more information and thus require more space, right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y2p56/eli5_how_mp3_files_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5rycih"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I actually did a presentation on this (_URL_0_), but the basic idea is, if a song has a fixed bit rate, each sample is represented by the same number of digits. Some might be 000000 and some might be 111111 and some might be 101010 or anything else in between. But the file size is the number of 0s *or* 1s so it doesn't matter if it's silence or not, it's still given the same number of bits to represent that information."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://danturkel.com/papers/digitalanalog.pptx"
]
] |
|
34tfka
|
can cats understand that when we hurt them unintentionally that it was a accident?
|
I accidentally stepped on my cats paw with boots on while getting his food, he made a high pitched meow and ran away from me, I felt so bad and got down and did those kissy noises to call him over and he ran back happily and let me pet him and apologise, his behaviour hasn't changed since it happened so I am curious.
He didn't run away or hate me afterwards so it got me asking, can cats tell when they are hurt by their owners if it was a accident or not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34tfka/eli5_can_cats_understand_that_when_we_hurt_them/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqxw6zp",
"cqxwp2a"
],
"score": [
6,
9
],
"text": [
"The cat runs off as an automatic response because you're bigger than them, so don't worry about that much. I don't think they know it was an accident, but Im pretty sure they know you didnt intend to actually harm them. We can't ever truly know what the cat thinks after all, but we do know that cats \"play fight\" each other. So its likely they can tell the difference between serious and non-serious ",
"I feel like they can, I have a black cat who i have stepped on a couple of times when i go out for a smoke at night in the dark. If i don't apologize right away he will steer clear of me for a day or so, if i say sorry and give him some extra attention he acts as though nothing has happend. \n\nHe has also learned to meow if its dark to bring attention to the fact that he is around my feet, something he hasn't always done and only does at night. This leads me to believe that he knows that I do not intented to stand on him.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3j2dsn
|
why do singers not perform songs in full during a concert tour?
|
It's always made me wonder. I see a lot of them doing this:
1st Verse - Chorus - Bridge - Chorus.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3j2dsn/eli5why_do_singers_not_perform_songs_in_full/
|
{
"a_id": [
"culnqbz",
"culnzeb",
"culyycp"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I go to a lot of gigs, and I have never experienced this. I once heard a 20 minute song played in full. Maybe only artists of a particular genre do this. what genres of music do you go see?",
"You're not talking about, what I would call, singers. You're talking about entertainers. They got your money, put on a show, play the role of whatever celebrity persona they've sold us, and hit the road. They're not in it for the art or yhe love of music. They found a way to market themselves and live it up. \n**edit**: \"yhe\" is ancient Sumarian for \"the\". fyi",
"Who does this? A lot of bands I've seen play longer versions of songs than the album. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7926kc
|
what is the difference between ketchup and tomato sauce?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7926kc/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_ketchup_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"doyjli0",
"doykr5r"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Ketchup usually contains additional ingredients such as sugar, vinegar, seasonings (salt, garlic, pepper, cloves, etc.)\n\nAlthough tomato sauce can have more ingredients... at its most basic form it is simply tomatoes cooked down with a bit of lemon juice, vinegar or salt.\n\nBoth forms require a long cooking time to reduce the tomato to a soft sauce-like form.",
"Ketchup is only ever ketchup: that sugary vinegary tomatoey red goop they sell in bottles at the store.\n\nTomato sauce could be used to describe a whole range of tomato based sauces.\n\nKetchup is a sauce made of tomatoes, so it is a tomato sauce, but there are other tomato sauces that are not ketchup.\n\nI'd say Heinz baked beans come in a tomato sauce, but they certainly don't come in ketchup."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3e201j
|
why does japanese fiction have so many siblings trying to bang each other?
|
So I like to watch anime/read manga of and on. Yet, I keep on running into various shows that have a lot of incestuous context to them. Specifically between brother/sister, I don't think I've ever ran into anything parent/child like, but today I've picked up serjes where this seems to be a central plot point. There obviously seems to be some acceptance of a taboo here, since the incestous relationship is either almost always a point of strife and/or something that one of the characters desires unrequitted. However, in contrast with western media the frequency that this theme seems to appear in Japanese media (or even Eastern media in general? [Oldboy comes to mind, though that's not really a sibling thing]) is kind of surprising.
So I'm wondering where it culturally stems from, or if I'm just imaging it, or if I happen to have a very poor taste in anime/manga covers?
Also excuse shitty grammar, because alcohol.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e201j/eli5_why_does_japanese_fiction_have_so_many/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctaqhnx",
"ctaqrwn",
"ctaykk5"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I can't answer for sure, but it's a cultural thing. They are more open to these things than many other western culture. Im not saying everyone is gonna bang their mom or dad, but it's a topic that's not as \"eww\" as it is in other places. I mean really, just spend enough time in a porn site and you'll come across plenty of Japanese porn where people try to guess who's their sibling/parent is by screwing several people anonymously....eww!",
"Only children, in general, are more open to brother-sister incest because they don't have any siblings themselves, and thus don't actually experience the biological aversion that people with siblings generally do. Since they don't experience it, the idea of brother-sister incest doesn't really have anything to connect to in their minds that they'd find revolting.\n\nSo why is that relevant? Japan is going through a severe population dip, with the population in general showing a real disinterest in having sex with each other. That throws the ratio of only children to children with siblings way off. More only children = a statistically greater number of people with no revulsion to sibling incest = incest becoming more normal.",
"Pretty sure it's a cultural thing. As I recall first cousin marriage is legal there, so that can be fairly typical like in Kaze no Stigma. I've only seen the whole Brother/Sister thing once in The Irregulars at Magic High School and that was extremely awkward. They're probably just trying to target a specific audience."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4w1md1
|
why does being stared at make us angry/seen as an act of dominance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4w1md1/eli5why_does_being_stared_at_make_us_angryseen_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d639dad",
"d63qu3p"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Often enough it's a violation of assumed privacy, even in the public eye, to many individuals. Additionally it dates back to our primal side; the Amygdala, a part of our brain, is in charge of our reaction to fear, the need for survival and can govern our instinctual reaction to things when there is no input from the frontal cortex (or area of the brain responsible for deeper thinking and reason). Because staring has historically been interpreted as a sign of aggression, or a precursor to attack, our reaction is still based on evolutionary history. Henceforth we are quick to become angry or fearful as your senses beg the following question; are you the hunter or the hunted? ",
"We have the natural ability to sense when we are the focus of attention. I dont know if its ever been explained, but it is proven. Usually, too much focus on something is a matter of wanting it... not necessarily possessiveness, just \"MINE\".\nWhen you stare at someONE, you are usually angry, aggressive, or jealous (other things too, but it all boils down to \"if i see it/them, it/they belongs to me, even if i have to break it/them\"). When they stare at you, it becomes a matter of who's stronger in whatever way the challenge demands. Its not really anger, just every man a king in his own mind."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6dap8o
|
why was the emergency response team so terrible in the aftermaths of hurricane katrina? or am i just remembering it incorrectly?
|
*Aftermath. Not aftermaths. Dang it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dap8o/eli5_why_was_the_emergency_response_team_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di170gy",
"di19nkp",
"di1jshy"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Prior to Katrina disaster response in the US worked according to a strict hierarchy. The local government had the primary responsibility for dealing with the disaster. If they were overwhelmed, they would request state assistance and then the state would take over. If the state was overwhelmed then they would request Federal assistance and the Federal government would take over. \n\nIn New Orleans the local government had no plan for dealing with the hurricane and all but abandoned the city once it hit. As a result, there was virtually no local response to the hurricane. The state of Louisiana also had no plan for dealing with the hurricane and failed to mobilize its national guard or respond to the hurricane in any meaningful way. Because of that, there was no immediate response.\n\nThe Federal government recognized what was going on at the local and state level about a week before the hurricane hit, but Federal law severely restricts the Federal government from getting involved in a disaster response until a state formally requests aid, and historical precedent dictated that the Federal government would not get involved at all - including what its legally allowed to do - until that request was made. The Bush administration was particularly sensitive to that, as the popular political criticism of Bush at the time was to compare Bush to a dictator over the Iraq War. So even though the Federal government saw what was going on, their legal options for responding were limited and they were terrified of breaking the longstanding historical precedent of not having any involvement without a formal state request due to concerns over that bolstering the \"Bush is a dictator\" criticism.\n\nAnd the State of Louisiana didn't initially make a formal request for help, nor does it appear as though there was ever a plan for them to do so. Two days after the hurricane had passed - when the media was openly calling for the Federal government to take over - the administration called the state governor and told her that she was either going to make the formal request for Federal assistance, or the Federal government was just going to take over from her without it. At that point Louisiana's governor made the formal request for Federal assistance and the Federal government took over. \n\nHowever, as Louisiana had done essentially nothing to prepare for the hurricane, and had done nothing since it hit it took several more days for the Federal government to actually organize the state national guard to respond to the hurricane. Because of that it took about a week before there was a meaningful response to the hurricane.\n\nDue to all of this, while the Federal government is still restricted from responding to a disaster until a state formally requests aid, the Federal government is now much more involved in planning and coordinating response plans with the state governments and making sure the national guard and emergency supplies are prepositioned prior to a disaster happening.\n\nedit: and as to the other response - keep in mind who they are citing as \"sources\" as well as the fact that the President at the time was a Republican and both the Governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans were Democrats.",
"The failures were in leadership, not those who were trying to physically respond to the devastation.\n\nI'm going to lay out the major mistakes first, and finish with how Katrina changed Emergency Management for the better.\n\n**The Mistakes**\n\n_URL_3_\n\n > 2. Hundreds of firefighters from other cities who volunteered to help in the response were rerouted to Atlanta, where they sat through two days of presentations on sexual harassment and the history of FEMA before being sent to New Orleans.\n\n > 3. FEMA Director Michael Brown, who resigned over his handling of the response, later told a group of students that the White House only wanted to federalize the response in Louisiana, where the governor was a Democrat, and not in Republican-led Mississippi in order to embarrass Louisiana officials. Brown said the White House believed they had a chance to “rub [Kathleen Blanco’s] nose in it.” The Bush administration denied political considerations played a role in the response.\n\n > 4. The federal government didn’t waive the Stafford Act, which requires localities to contribute 10 percent of the cost of reconstruction and clean-up projects, until May. It was quickly waived after both Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew.\n\n > 5. An investigation by Congressional Republicans, while placing most of the blame on the Bush administration, singled out New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin for not ordering an evacuation of the city until less than 24 hours before Katrina’s landfall. Nearby Plaquemines Parish had ordered an evacuation a day earlier.\n\n > 6. Then-New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered 200 members of his state’s national guard to help Louisiana the day the Katrina hit, but a letter from Washington authorizing the move didn’t arrive until five days later.\n\n > 7. On Tuesday, Aug. 30, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff flew to Atlanta for a briefing on the avian flu, and President George W. Bush later said he thought New Orleans had dodged a bullet. In fact, the White House had been informed the night before that levees in New Orleans had broken and the city was flooding.\n\n > 8. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office called a Mississippi electricity cooperative and ordered repair crews to restore power to a pipeline sending oil and gas to the northeast, delaying the restoration of power to two rural hospitals.\n\n > 9. Before the storm hit, Amtrak ran equipment out of the city. With rooms for several hundred evacuees, they offered the spots to the city. Officials declined, so the train left with no passengers. \n\nAdditionally, New Orleans and Louisiana acted too late and, made some critical errors That caused their emergency preparedness plan to fall apart.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > Ms. HEDGE-MORRELL: What we figured at that point--the city made a decision--the Office of Emergency Preparedness made a decision that rather than try to get stuck in that traffic evacuating these people, they brought them to the Superdome. But the intention was that as soon as Katrina passed, they were going to bus them to shelters past I-12.\n\n > SULLIVAN: That decision quickly became a critical mistake and turned the Superdome, the city's shelter of last resort, into a refuge for everyone. Then after the storm, when the levees broke, thousands more came. And the city buses, meant to take them to proper shelters, were underwater.\n\n > But New Orleans officials weren't the only ones to miscalculate. Joe Donchess directs the Louisiana Nursing Home Association. Two days before the storm hit he told all the homes in the area to evacuate, but ultimately, he says, it's up to each home to decide for itself.\n\n > Mr. JOE DONCHESS (Director, Louisiana Nursing Home Association): Nursing homes have to more or less play God in deciding how are we going to be most--the most severely damaged? By evacuating people on buses? Or do we shelter in place, hoping that the storm will miss?\n\n > SULLIVAN: Only 15 nursing homes evacuated. Thirty-seven did not. Then there was FEMA. The federal agency waited until after the storm to arrange for buses. Sally Snead(ph) is an executive with Kerry Meetings & Events(ph), the country's largest transportation company. She says FEMA called at midnight on Monday, almost a full day after the storm, to ask for 200 buses. \n\n**\"I wouldn't leave my dogs behind. They're part of the family,\" \"Would you leave your children at home?\"** \n\n**- Patricia Neal, 42, of West Palm Beach.**\n\n_URL_2_\n\n > When Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans, more than 10,000 people refused evacuation because they wouldn't leave behind their most precious possessions -- their pets.\n\nRescuers wouldn't allow people to bring animals, and most shelters weren't accepting them. Some who refused to leave their pets became casualties, among more than 1,500 people who died along the Gulf Coast. It's a refusal many understand.\n\n**How Hurricane Katrina changed Emergency Management for the better**\n\nIn 2005 Incidents were managed from the top down. The highest ranking responding agency ( FEMA in this case) shows up and assumed operational control. This was always troublesome because, these agencies are unfamiliar with the area and it's population. They are unfamiliar with the with the local resources (first responders), their capabilities and, lack a working relationship with the heads of those agencies. It creates a steep learning curve that was impossible to overcome on an incident of Katrina's magnitude.\n\nNow Incidents are managed at the lowest possible level with State and Federal agencies providing resources and logistical support.\n\nLaws nationwide have been changed. Evacuation orders are (somewhat) more enforceable. In many locals, the Incident Commander can order legally binding orders without getting approval from an elected official (they used to have to track them down and convince them to issue said orders)\n\nMost locations now have pre-negotiated compacts and contracts that go into effect when a disaster is declared. This seemingly simply thing can get you resources and supplies in hours, when used to take days.\n\nLast but not least... Pets! Most sizable population centers have shelters that allow pets and have volunteer orgs like [C.A.R.T](_URL_1_) to rescue and shelter the animals at the same location as their owners.",
"/u/jutnob and /u/ughhhhh420 \n\nEach of your comprehensive answers did not get the attention they deserve. They are both great. You each also deftly avoided political issues in spectacular fashion. I commend you each. \n\nThese are the things that help restore my faith in the sub's content."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4860776",
"https://events.drupal.org/losangeles2015/bofs/community-animal-rescue-team-0",
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/29/AR2006072900545_pf.html",
"http://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/10-facts-about-the-katrina-response-081957"
],
[]
] |
|
6lf15z
|
why are humans innately sexual throughout their entire lives?
|
Now I'm 25, almost 26, and this is a topic that's always kind of confused me. Later in high school I learned that boys can get erections before puberty, even before birth; and that both boys and girls can climax before puberty. As far as I'm aware, we're the only animals that are like this, but why?
Edit: To add onto this, why are we also capable of sexual activity well past our sexual prime?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lf15z/eli5_why_are_humans_innately_sexual_throughout/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djtbig3",
"djtcq34",
"djtetl0",
"djtfvn2",
"djtgdke",
"djtno2i",
"djtod0w",
"djtpl18"
],
"score": [
466,
46,
33,
9,
3,
127,
4,
11
],
"text": [
"As an anthropologist, I’ve always thought the answer to this stems from one of our closest evolutionary relatives, the Bonobo. Bonobos are also sexual throughout their entire lifespan, and juvenile sexual “play” happens quite a lot. Like us, Bonobos have sex frequently, in a variety of positions, engage in homosexual behavior, and seem to enjoy themselves quite a lot. However, *also like us, sex seems to serve a different purpose in Bonobo society than pure reproduction.* In Bonobos, it functions to soothe aggressions between individuals. Someone’s upset? Have sex with them. Want someone’s banana? Don’t just take it and beat them up, have a little sex with them. Infant is fussing? Masturbate them a bit to calm them down.\n\nFlip to humans. We also engage in a diversity of sexual acts (unlike other primates), and sexuality also serves a different purpose in our society than just pure reproduction. It’s not mitigate aggression, but it probably evolved in its current state to form bonds between two individuals or a group of individuals (not saying that’s how we always use it, but that’s probably what it evolved for). \n\nIn short, in evolution, moving sex out of a purely reproductive context has had all sorts of downstream effects, including high levels of sexuality, even when reproduction is taken off the table.",
"For men, random erections are important to for maintaining a healthy penis. So when a child gets one, its not because they are aroused it is because their biology is doing a kind of 'trial run' to ensure the reproductive organ is functional, no damage, etc.\n\nedit: this is also the reason men often wake up with 'morning wood'\nedit2: changed systems check to trial run to appease the pedantics",
"I've read that the ability to have sex all year long, which is especially special for human females, makes it possible for a female and a male to stay in a relationship for a while, which increase the probability of survivance for their child. Since males are using less energy to have babies because to make them it only really requires to have sex, while for females (at least for most primates) it involves pregnancy and nurturing the baby, it makes males more likely to try to have more sex than females. As human's evolution made them more and more social animals and smart, it increased a lot how much care a human needs to fully grow up. It then became less good evolutionary wise for males to just have tones of babies. So females ended up evolving to have sex all year long, which is kind of an evolutionary compromise since males already had those genes. \n\n > why are we also capable of sexual activity well past our sexual prime?\n\nFor males, it's simply because since they don't loose a lot of energy, it's just more worthy to take a chance to have a baby, even if there is less say 1 chance out of 10 that he doesn't survive. Most animals actually can reproduce all their adults life, and if they can't, they die really soon after. There is little evolutionary reason for an animal to survive if they don't reproduce. \n\nFor females though, the question isn't really why they can have sex, but more why can't they actually reproduce? Or why didn't they evolved to have more ovules? Enough till they die? Well, a teacher of mine said that it's because since it takes so much care for humans to raise babies, it's evolutionary more worthy for females, once old, to take care of their grandchildren more than having a baby on their own. For an old woman, having a baby on her own would mean both big probability to have a sick baby (since older people have bigger chances to have an unhealthy baby) and big probability to don't have that many years to take care of it too, since they can get sick, and/or die since they're old. So, as their grandchildren are also their own DNA, it's worthy. \nThen, why is it like that for females, more than males? Because females are always sure it's their own children and grandchildren since they get pregnant. While males sometimes, raise some other's man children, which means that them taking care of \"*their*\" grandchildren must be less worthy than keep trying to have children on their own. \n\n(P.S. sorry for the poor English.)\n\nTltr; humans take so much energy to raise that it's more worthy for people to have just a few and to actually make sure they fully grow up. ",
"Firstly, having an erection or being _capable_ of climax is not the same as 'being sexual'. Some of that is just \"being biological\".\n\nThat aside, we can imagine all sorts of benefial aspects with regards to survival of humans. Firstly, we used to die a lot younger so being sexual all your life likely connected a lot more to the time period when you could reproduce. That's probably pretty important!\n\nAdditionally, maintaining familial bonds - of which partner-sex is a part - has probably been beneficial to survival of family and community and a key advantage the world.\n\nFor me, the ability to continue to provide sperm as long as possible has also probably been better than an alternative - more sperm supply = good (old man sperm! yay!).\n\nThere are monkeys that have casual sex and that have non-reproductive sex, child \"sex play\", and post menopausal sex.",
"It's purely a matter of reproductive survival. Unlike many species humans give birth to a single offspring. That means in order to proliferate it has to be fertile longer, and this implies, necessarily prolonged sexuality. \n\nIf sex did not feel good, then why would it be done? The innate dopamine behavioral drivers create a secondary growth system outside of the least energy drivers. Without this \"Spark of Life\" humans would have gone extinct 100K's of years ago, very likely.\n\nThe feel good of dopamine (DA) is what creates drives of all sorts, which efficiently, plus least energy, create the proliferation of the species. Do we actually think that breast feeding is painful for the woman? Hardly. There is hormonal release and she gets DA rewards for it. That's why not only women's nipples are sensitive, but men's as well. That same sensation applies to the genital areas as well, and in men, the prostate, too.\n\nThis is a lot of what it is, the largely D2, dopamine receptor site drivers...\n\n_URL_0_",
"Also female \"fertility time\" is cryptic in humans so the males will try all year to fertilize the females. For most animals there is a clear breeding season mostly visible by color change and/or smell change in one or both sexes. Human females evolved further and don't show males when it's time to breed or \"show off\" to get a female, so the male puts more effort into a relationship with a female. ",
"Sexual could be interpreted in many ways. Erection doesn't necessarily mean a sexual aid. It's a healthy reaction of your organ for many of its functions",
"I think that this question is pretty interesting because further questions and 'data' need to be taken into consideration. \nI think one needs to unpick several assumptions about sex to find an answer. \nCouldn't all creatures be called 'sexual' because of reproduction? When does the sexual nature of animals start and finish? Does life span play a part? What about social taboos and the effect of sexual practice? Does level of consciousness play a part on sexuality? Do animals in the wild have different sexual drives to human animals? Would we behave more animal like if our society was different? Why are we more organised and discreet about sex compared to animals on the wild? Do survival and hygiene have anything to do with our sexual behaviour?\n🤔"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/the-spark-of-life-and-the-soul-of-wit/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5vjil6
|
why can we not spot our own mistakes when proof reading our own work?
|
When proof reading other people's work, I can easily spot mistakes. However, when re-reading my own work, I fail to notice if I have repeated words- or even left some out, unless someone else tells me otherwise.
When I proof read, everything makes sense, and even if words are missing, I read it as if they are there.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vjil6/eli5_why_can_we_not_spot_our_own_mistakes_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de2jb9z",
"de2o392"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you are still reading it as you wrote it in your mind, not as how it is on the paper. \n\nThat's why common advice is to walk away from the writing for a bit when you're done, and re-read it with a fresh mind. ",
"Familiarity - you just wrote it, and you've been looking at it for hours (potentially). Another person has the advantage of reading it for the first time, and that's key."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
f46jj7
|
how do people live in a hotel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f46jj7/eli5_how_do_people_live_in_a_hotel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhofvhl",
"fhog20e",
"fhoh94l",
"fhoi4ig",
"fhor1a1",
"fhosoh3"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
5,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not 100% sure exactly what you're talking about, so here's two scenarios. \n\nFirst is someone living in a hotel. They likely have a lot of money, and will probably be in the penthouse. This isn't a hotel room like normal, it's just an additional way for them to make money. They sell the penthouse, and then charge fees, just like buying and living in a condo. Well that's because it basically is. They figure they'll sell it for $2 million, and charge $500 a month in condo fees. Living in a normal hotel room, as a normal person will get very expensive, very fast.\n\n\nThe other thing, and the one I believe you're thinking of is living in a motel. Normally people without money do this. The motel gives weekly or monthly prices which are lower than the daily price because they know that room isn't full every day of the year. So it's better to give a discounted rate and make half the money than charge the full rate and only fill that room once or twice a month.",
" > Does the hotel sell rooms? \n\nUsually not, though some newer builds have “residences” on some floors which are essentially condominiums. Traditionally, you just move into a room and keep paying the hotel.\n\n > Do they charge rent instead of a daily rate? \n\nMany hotels offer a weekly rate. Depending on the length of stay, who you are and who owns the hotel, other rates might be negotiable.\n\n > Do you get mail at the hotel addressed to your room or something?\n\nSure or rent a post office box or have your mail come general delivery to a nearby post office.\n\nAny reputable hotel will receive packages or letters for a current or future guest.",
"I work in a hotel and we have a few long term guests who use the hotel as their primary residence. \n\nThey are not living in the penthouse. \n\nWe have 2 brothers who lost everything fighting for their business. (Long story short, they owned a well known local pizza place, hired a partner who then bought the business out from under them - not sure of all the details on that, so they opened another place with a different name. New owner screwed up and lost the business, they fought tooth and nail to get their name back to reopen under their original name)\n\nThey live in a small suite on a, I think, monthly rate. \n\nWe have two people who each have rooms in the main part of the hotel. Neither are in “penthouses” either. They just pay a set rate either weekly or monthly.",
"I'm a travel nurse and live in hotels because you dont have to deal with slumlords and deposits plus the weekly / monthly rate is generally competitively priced with the furnished, all utilities paid, rental houses in the area. Also I have dogs and hotels don't charge insane pet deposits and most don't have a daily pet fee after x number of days which puts them well below the cost of rentals.\n\nFirst you call the hotel and ask about their long-term rate. Then you check in and pay weekly until it's time to go. All hotels accept packages (and no one steals them off your porch) and mail.\n\nExtended Stay America is one chain where all the rooms are designed for long term use and they're usually priced *way* below market value. Like the ESA in San Francisco is 1800 a month but renting an apartment is 3200 plus bills. I've stayed in a few of those because my dogs used to bark a lot and the clientele that ESA cater to don't complain. And trust me, those people are not rich.\n\nThen all the major hotel chains have their own extended stay options and those get pricier as you go up the ladder of chains. I'm currently staying in Candlewood Suites, which is the Holiday Inn chain, but like Marriot and Wyndham have ones too.\n\nAlso, the main difference between the extended stay chains and a regular chain is the kitchenette. I know a lot of nurses who just stay in regular rooms and use their air fryer and crock pot to make up for the lack of a stove.",
"When I got out of college and into the energy sector (Oil and Gas) work paid for me to stay in a hotel... a pretty damn nice one. \n\nHilton Homewood suites -- they had arrays of rooms designed for long term guests (aka, I had a separate living room and bedroom, kitchen) like a mini apartment.\n\nWas something like $2500/month, I made some bank on the hotel rewards points too since I was there for something like 10 months. Even funnier is that when I had business in Arkansas they basically paid me to keep a hotel room in each state. \n\nOne perk as well is that after 30 consecutive days in TX, you don't pay sales tax on the room. Something to do with at that point you are seen as a permanent resident of said hotel, I forget the wording, but that's how the law works. \n\nAll that being said -- hotel living after a while kinda sucks in my opinion. Yeah it's nice someone is cleaning your towels and room and whatnot but privacy feels somewhat degraded.",
"This is better in r/answers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4gwip9
|
why do we "speed up" when falling until we hit terminal velocity? if gravity isn't getting any stronger, why wouldn't my speed remain constant when jumping out of an airplane?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gwip9/eli5_why_do_we_speed_up_when_falling_until_we_hit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2lbf05",
"d2lbkuf"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gravity is a force acting upon you. It doesn't just 'yank you' once and then quit. It continues to pull the entire time you are falling. So there is a net force downwards for the entire period of your descent, which causes you to accelerate.\n\nIt's only when you reach terminal velocity that there is a counter force, effectively cancelling out the downward force and leaving you with (roughly) no net force.\n\nIf no force was acting upon you, you'd continue at the same velocity. ",
"You mean why wouldn't your _acceleration_ remain constant, going faster and faster?\n\nWind resistance is a function of your velocity (in fact, velocity^2). When you jump out of the plane, you're not going very fast (downwards). So gravity acts in its consistent (and inevitable) fashion and accelerates you downwards at 9.81 m/s^2. But at a certain velocity down, the acceleration up (drag, due to wind resistance) equals the 9.81 m/s^2 down and so your downard velocity remains constant - terminal velocity.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3qp7n6
|
why is my car loan (1.5%... or 0% for 12 months, etc.) so much "cheaper" than my home loan (4%, an historic low)? why doesn't the cost of lending money equalize?
|
If a car dealership can afford to loan me money at 1%, or even less, why can't a bank loan me a home at the same interest rate? Home loans seem safer than car loans. I thought that maybe the disparity is because the dealer's margin on the cars is what paid their bills... but I've learned that sometimes that margin is very, very thin. Home loan interest rates always seem to be based on "national rates" which somehow links all the way back to Federal policy... so why doesn't an online bank startup with some investment capital say, "screw that!", charge only 2%, and take over the industry?! Maybe there's some other reason why my dealership can afford to offer me 0.5% financing?
Shouldn't the "cost" of lending money equalize, like other supply-and-demand markets equalize?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qp7n6/eli5_why_is_my_car_loan_15_or_0_for_12_months_etc/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwh5iq3",
"cwh8xjo",
"cwhhbds"
],
"score": [
9,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Financing on a car loan is just one aspect of the profit they make. You will notice that these low percentage rates aren't offered all year long or on all car models at the same time - they are offered like sales. \"Come in for our year-end closing event! Get financing for 1.5%!\" They can afford to offer low loans at certain times during the year because it is more advantageous to get rid of the cars on the lot with a good deal than it is to not sell them at all. You can also get a loan from numerous other sources other than the dealership (such as a bank), so it's better that they make a small profit on the loan than no profit on it at all.\n\nThey might offer low rates if:\n\n* The new models are coming out soon and they want to get rid of last year's cars\n* Winter is coming - they don't sell as many cars during the winter\n* A certain model isn't selling well and they want to promote it\n* etc.\n\nYou're not going to get a mortgage from anyone but a bank, so they can charge whatever interest they want as long as they aren't too much higher than any other bank.",
"Loans typically have higher interest rates for the longer the lifespan of the loan because the longer the loan, the longer the risk of inflation, etc. that could reduce the actual value of the interest paid back. Since car loans are typically 3-5 years, there's less risk of dramatic changes in interest rates and inflation that would cut the effective income from the loan compared to a 15 or 30 year mortgage.",
"When you buy a new car, you generally borrow money from the car company. Low interest rates are part of the incentives the company gives you to buy it. Reducing the interest rate is mostly equivalent to giving you a 10% discount on the price, it just sits on their books a little differently. They're still making plenty of money selling the car.\n\nYou don't see low rates like that on used cars.\n\nWhen you're buying a home, the people that own the home are separate from the people providing financing. The bank has no reason to give you a low interest rate just to make sure you're buying a house from them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
25e3ap
|
why is it okay for emergency exits to open only after 15 seconds? isn't that not what emergency means?
|
I'm thinking for example of an active shooter situation. But even in a fire I'm going to be pretty sad for those 15 seconds.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25e3ap/eli5_why_is_it_okay_for_emergency_exits_to_open/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chg9cw9",
"chg9mh0",
"chg9s9u"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Where the hell do you live that has those kinds of emergency exits.",
"This is a security measure and to prevent those doors from being used when they shouldn't be. If someone is trying to get to somewhere they shouldn't be, it gives people enough time to find and stop them before they can make it through.",
"In a fire, those doors release automatically when the fire alarm goes off. The reason they have a 15 second delay from just pushing the panic bar is they're in areas where theft can occur and they don't want the doors opened unless it's actually an emergency. The alarm/delay/unlock discourages them from being used except as such. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4egdzl
|
how does thread count make things feel soft?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4egdzl/eli5_how_does_thread_count_make_things_feel_soft/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1zuacj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Which is smoother to the touch: Ruffles potato chips or regular potato chips? By the threads being closer together, it creates a flatter surface area and a smoother feel.\n\nHowever, 1000 thread count sheets can still feel rougher than some 400 or 600 thread count sheets. The type of material used has a lot to do with the feel, not just thread count alone."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2fc1q0
|
what is tired?
|
How come we get tired? Assuming you maintain a healthy flow of food, water, etc why do we still get tired at the end of the day? I sometimes have to stay up way longer than normal for work, and feel sick after 18-20 hours. What is causing us to be tired?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fc1q0/eli5_what_is_tired/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck7temj",
"ck7tzts"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't really know why humans sleep. The best explanation I've gotten so far is that humans were terrible at getting food during the night so it was better to just conserve energy by \"powering down\" until the daytime. While sleeping your body evolved to go \"well, might as well get all this stuff done that couldn't wait while he was hunting\" and repairs itself then. Also, I'm not sure if your username (Alert and Oriented times three) makes this a troll question or not but I figured I'd take a stab at it.",
"You are not going to get a satisfactory answer here because, as far as I am aware, there is no conclusive evidence of why we sleep. \n\nStill, a fun way to explore this type of question is to think in evolutionary terms. The reason we sleep as much as we do is that our ancestors whose genes told them to sleet less were less adapted to survive and reproduce. **Some time in our evolution, our bodies were selected to need to sleep roughly eight hours per night and they were selected to take sunlight as the cue to be awake.** \n\nNow you get to make hypotheses. **Maybe sleep is about conserving energy.** Our brains use a huge amount of energy and most animals can't be adapted for both day and night, so maybe sleep is our way of reducing our energy consumption during periods that we aren't adapted for. This could explain hibernation as well. Humans are clearly better adapted for daytime conditions, so this would create a pressure to sleep while while it is dark. \n\n**Maybe our body can do certain functions best when we are almost completely still and unstimulated.** Maybe tissue repair, the immune system, long-term memory formation, growth, etc, all function better when the body is least stimulated and least active. These would create pressures for us to sleep as long as possible (or at least a minimum amount of time). \n\nObviously there are also pressures to be awake and alert for as long as possible. In humans, the genes that encourage the best balance between sleeping and waking would dominate the population. **Since our bodies have adapted as a complete unit, your body is adapted as one that only functions with sleep. If it is deprived of the sleep that it has evolved to need, it functions less well.**\n\nI hope this unsatisfactory answer helps a little. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5hd4wk
|
why are tesla batteries lots of little batteries wired together. can't they just make big ones?
|
Is it more efficient to use little ones, or is it technology limitations?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hd4wk/eli5_why_are_tesla_batteries_lots_of_little/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dazai6q"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Making a semantic comment rather than a technical one. If there was only one electrolytic cell it wouldn't be a battery. For example, a 9V battery is a battery of six 1.5V cells in series. In contrast, a AA cell is not a battery at all; only a cell. The word battery means many units working together, as in a battery of guns.\n\nBack to the technical. Electrolytic cells produce only a low voltage so it's necessary to connect them in series, multiplying the voltage in a battery. It's impractical to drive high-power motors with a low voltage because the extremely high current required would need thick and expensive cables. Also, some of the losses involved in the power control electronics are of a constant voltage; losing 0.5V might be acceptable with a 100V supply but if you're only working with 3V the loss of efficiency is too great. Much the same issue would arise in any attempt to step up the battery voltage with a DC to DC converter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5qc9cy
|
why is the human neck so sensitive that if it gets broken the person will perish?
|
When a person brokes his arm or his leg it is not particulary Fatal for the whole person's body... what makes the neck so different from this other areas... if a person brokes his neck, its most likely to die... what makes the person die from a neck break? what exactly occurs in our body system when our necks get broken?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qc9cy/eli5_why_is_the_human_neck_so_sensitive_that_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcy1mks",
"dcy20uf"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"It would almost definitely drown, but could be a lucky little spider! Don't kill spiders though, just take them outside in a cup or something, they're needed to control flies and stuff, and they can be actually cute and they get so scared of us it's cute!",
"Think of neck like a pipe that has electric wires inside. Those wires connect to different things and help to power them. Basically your spinal cord connects your brain to your body with nerves that control stuff like moving your arm or breathing.\n\n\nIf you snap the pipe in half, there's a good chance that you're breaking those wires too and you might lose power in some important things."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
yn3vr
|
the new theory about the big bang.
|
I've been seeing a lot of stuff in /r/science and /r/space about a new theory regarding the big bang. Can anyone break it down for me?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yn3vr/eli5_the_new_theory_about_the_big_bang/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5x1zmp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[This comment](_URL_0_) explains it rather well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ymq0g/big_bang_was_actually_a_phase_change_new_theory/c5wz0me?context=2"
]
] |
|
37hc5f
|
how does the dalai lama earn a living?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37hc5f/eli5_how_does_the_dalai_lama_earn_a_living/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crmpged",
"crmsh6j",
"crmu8s1"
],
"score": [
111,
9,
4
],
"text": [
"The Dalai Lama is an author, a teacher and a speaker. He gets paid a lot of money to do speaking engagements. He got paid more than $550,000(U.S) for one event that I could find the ticket sale info on in Australia. He's a celebrity, besides the money from ticket sales, I'm sure all his expenses are paid to travel anywhere because he's most likely invited by someone or some entity that will pay for everything. He most likely doesn't keep the money, since I don't think monks can, but I'm not sure where it goes. Also, he controls the Tibetan Government in exile which does receive many donations to pay for travel and security.",
"He's a religious leader. He sells books, lectures, and other speaking arrangements. \n\n[Oddly enough he was on the payroll of the CIA up until the mid 70's as well.](_URL_0_)",
"I just watched a documentary about him last night called \"10 questions asked to the Dalai Lama\" and in it it said that he won the Nobel prize and then gave all the money away to charity. What a bad ass. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program"
],
[]
] |
||
2btzon
|
how ads really affect us.
|
As I click through my 3rd straight pornhub ad, I wondered, "do people really fall for these?"
Do they? Am I subconsciously falling for these?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2btzon/eli5_how_ads_really_affect_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj8vt4q",
"cj8vveu"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"A large portion of advertising relies on remotely programming your subconscious. The human mind is overwhelmed with thousands of advertising messages every day, but we can't absorb them all. A portion of our brain 'tunes out' the messages we don't want to see, only focusing on the ones most relevant to us.\n\nThis explains why you might start seeing 'more' ads for (say) a new car, just after you start thinking of buying a new car. It's not that the number of ads increased, but that your brain is now noticing these ads.\n\nAdvertisers must try to program that subconscious aspect of your mind by subliminally throwing ads around you - whether that be Television, Billboards, Bus Ads, or Internet. Everytime your brain sees that ad, it makes a mental note of it, and chooses whether to consciously make you aware of the ad. If the ad is quite complicated and requires conscious decoding to understand its message, your mind will automatically make you focus on it - that's why ads try to use bright colors, loud noises etc. It's a trick to draw you out of your stupor and make you focus on the advert.\n\nSo although every ad on the internet will receive clicks, it's all part of a longer war against your wallet. By bombarding you with enough advertising messages, advertisers hope to slowly change your subconscious programming and force you to become interested in the product, without you consciously knowing you wanted that product. By planting a seed deep inside your mind, advertisers are trying to coax you into purchasing something.\n\nAt the very least, the advertisers are trying to create a 'link' in your mind, between a product and a brand, so that next time you are thinking of a product, you immediately think of the brand. In many cases, this is why companies use jingles or catchphrases - subconsciously, we begin to associate a phrase, or piece of music, with a product, even if we never consciously paid attention to it.\n\n**TL;DR** It's more about advertisers trying to program your subconscious, by subtly providing triggers and clues inside your mind, waiting to be 'activated' by the conscious portion of your brain.\n\nSource; I've done marketing units at university.",
"Generally those pornhubs ads, no, people don't normally fall for them.\n\nThat being said, there are thousands of views on those videos, each day. Let's say 40 000 people watch a video. If 2% clicks on it, that's 800. If actually buy, that's 16 people.\n\nIt's the same way that a lot of gangs and cults and other seedy groups grow without overtly advertising. I was told by my Anthropology teacher, when he was a teenager, he grew up in a rural area. Every year, the local gentleman's community club (Like the Shriners, or a Lion's club or something like that) had a Camping trip that they got men to go on with them, ranging from fathers and sons, to single guys looking for a weekend of camping, to teenagers, etc. going out on a big group hike.\n\nAnd over this weekend, they would get them interested in the club, and then over a series of other outings and events, they would slowly try to induct them in, each time showing a bit more of the club.\n\nThe club was a front for a white supremacist group. And they only ever convinced one or two guys a year to join, but those 1 or 2 guys were more than they go otherwise.\n\nIt's the same thing with those pornhub ads. 50 no's and a yes is a yes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5iho6n
|
the current global internet architecture and how it's all connected.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5iho6n/eli5_the_current_global_internet_architecture_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db881nj",
"db897s6",
"db8k25o"
],
"score": [
7,
27,
2
],
"text": [
"The Internet is a worldwide, publicly accessible network of interconnected computer networks that communicate using the standard Internet protocol.\n\n Every computer has a unique IP address which it uses to communicate over the Internet. The Domain Name System (DNS) maps text names of websites(example- _URL_1_) to IP addresses automatically. _URL_0_ is the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), it contains the domain name of _URL_0_. DNS servers translate the domain name(English language) into the machine-readable IP address. \n\nIf you type an URL _URL_0_ into your browser the browser contacts a DNS server to get the IP address.\n\n All of the machines on the Internet are either servers or clients. The machines that provide services to other machines are servers. and the machines that are used to connect to those servers are clients. Servers have static IP addresses that don't change often unlike that of home connections that are usually assigned by the ISP and change often.\n\nPlease ask if you need any further clarification ",
"OK I will take a run at this one.\n\nThe Internet is a collection of smaller networks that known as autonomous systems (AS's) who agree to connect with each other (Peer) this can either either be paid or free depending on the relationship. Every AS is unique and will exchange information about how to reach one side of the internet to the other using a something called BGP (Border gateway protocol) with each of its neighbors. The 'glue' that connects these networks together are the Routers these 'Speak' BGP and exchange the information and determine the best way to get from point A to Point B as well as tell the neighboring routers which networks they can reach, this in turn is passed around the internet, this is very dynamic and changes occur all the time in the background. This is how it works.\n\nNow how it's connected is highly variable, this can be as simple as a one network cable like you use at home from one router to another up to 100G Fiber connections and beyond, many companies rent or own dark fiber (this is fiber that is 'empty' and the company will use it's own equipment on each end) to reach huge distances or they will share a fiber with other companies and transmit a certain contracted amount of space or bandwidth on that network segment \n\nFun Fact: a major trans Atlantic carrier only has only 4 fibers that run under the ocean and the cable is about 6 inches thick, 99.999% of that is Armour for the 4 fibers which are less then the width of a human hair, however the capacity of the fiber is immense.\n\nI hope this helps, there is a lot more to it beyond the scope of this if you would like to know something in particular I will happily go a little more in depth (I run one of these AS's)",
"The other comments here are really busy.\n\nBasically the internet is just defined as a way computers can talk to each other in morse code. \n\nEvery computer that is on the \"internet\" is just connected to other computers that are connected to other computers that are connected to other computers, that are connected to other computers.... etc...\n\nLots of ways to have computers connect to each other. Wires, like phone/cable, fiber like FIOS, and satellite or radio waves.\n\nReally any signaling system can communicate the internet since its just a defined morse code system.\n\nYou could even use smoke signals to send internet information if you had a way for a system, or person, to read the signals and input them back into the computer.\n\n\nWhen you pay for the internet you are paying for access to a highly managed network, infrastructure like wires, mostly, that give you access to the other major networks.\n\nYou don't really need this, though. Theoretically if wifi were longer range everyone could make their own \"internet\" by directly connecting to each other."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"www.google.com",
"google.com"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
9z9si9
|
how does _url_0_ stay up illegally? i read that the creators of the content have tried to take it down.
|
allsp is an illegal site that hosts every episode of south park.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9z9si9/eli5_how_does_allspch_stay_up_illegally_i_read/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea7fp15"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It’s hosted in a country that doesn’t have the same laws as the United States. \n\nThe people who make south park content own the intellectual property, but some countries laws are different in how people who own content can stop others from displaying or making money off their property. Usually this ends in a lawsuit. But some countries absolutely refuse to stop people from hosting owned content. \n\nHope this explains it. \n"
]
}
|
[
"allsp.ch"
] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4e340t
|
how do we have pictures of places in space that are billions of light years away; such as an outside view of our observable universe, when we only really started sending things into space in the 50's - 60's?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4e340t/eli5_how_do_we_have_pictures_of_places_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1wkmog",
"d1wkwmh",
"d1wm03e",
"d1ww5py"
],
"score": [
14,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"well, we can't see outside the observable universe, so I don't know how you got that... but the things we CAN see in space is from the light that they send us. ",
"The outside views are extrapolated from what we see from our point of view. All our real images are from within our own solar system, but since we can calculate ranges to those distant objects we can build models of what it would look like from other points of view.",
"Technically, we don't. We can see stuff that is billions of light years away and figure out where those things are in 3D space (we can see how far away it is, and where it is in the sky), so we can make a 3D map of it. But, we can't observe the full view that's depicted in those renderings. ",
"So far it looks like nobody has actually taken a shot at answering what I think you're asking, so I will try.\n\nDo you mean to say, how can we see stars, planets, nebulae, black holes, etc from more than 50-60 light years away?\n\nYou're making the incorrect assumption that we're somehow shining a light out into the universe and waiting for it to bounce back to us.\n\nThat is not what is happening. We are seeing light that is millions, billions, trillions of years \"old\".\n\nThe reason I put the world \"old\" in quotes is because light, which consists of photons, does not have a reference frame. Since light is travelling at light speed, from the perspective of a photon, there is no time. A photon, if it were a living, thinking creature, would not experience time. From it's point of reference, it is generated, moved, and absorbed by an atom all instantaneously.\n\nAnyway, back to the question at hand, everything we see from our telescopes here on Earth or in orbit is light that is, from our reference point, older the farther away the object is. For example, say a star is born 5 billion years ago and it is 6 billion ly (light years) away from us. We will not see the light from that star for 1 billion years. The light from that star must travel 6 billion years to get to us, so it hasn't reached us yet. To us, there is no star.\n\nOn the other hand, many of the stars we can see are long dead. For example, let's say a star lived a nice long life from 15 Ga (Ga = billion years ago) to 1 Ga and is 10 billion ly from Earth. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but for the purposes of this thought experiment let's round that up to 5. The timeline would look like this:\n\n* 15 Ga, a star goes boom and explodes into life\n* 5 Ga, the first light from the star reaches Earth, which has just formed\n* 1 Ga, the star dies\n* modern day, we see the star all perfectly normal doing normal star stuff\n* 9 billion years into the future, Earth witnesses the star go supernova and die\n\n\nSo even though the star died a billion years ago, we still see it for 9 billion more years because the light that it generated has taken that long to reach us. There is no star, it died long ago, but we see one just the same.\n\n\nTL;DR Relativity is weird\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wv7kz
|
how do ceo and high ranking people work for $0 pay or $1 with minimum wage laws?
|
I know they get other income from stocks and other kickbacks and dont neccesaraily always have a 'salary'
with $0 I can understand that maybe they are technically 'unpaid intern'/volunteering
but when they accept $1 or something. Technically they are getting paid $1/year, doesn't that violate minimum wage laws? even for salary?
Are you allowed to bypass minimum wage if you 'volunteer' to be underpaid?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wv7kz/eli5_how_do_ceo_and_high_ranking_people_work_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf5oi0i",
"cf5ow0p",
"cf5p5mx"
],
"score": [
40,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Wage laws are for hourly workers, salaried workers are exempt.",
"A lot of the time the stock options they get far outweigh a salary. Especially if they turn companies around. Taxed as capital gains too!",
"**ELI5:** Some people who run the country in Washington, DC have rules describing what is considered \"fair play\" between businesses and employees. People that own businesses do not have to follow these rules when paying themselves.\n\n**A less-ELI5 answer:** Federal and state legislation, including the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), provides protection for employees by establishing certain requirements for employers -- such as minimum wage, working hours, and other similar guidelines. However, this is not a blanket requirement for all people in all places. For example, business executives can be paid as little as $455 per week, as long as they meet a certain litmus test of roles and responsibilities. However, business owners (defined as each individual person who owns at least 20% of a company) are considered \"exempt\" from these requirements.\n\nFor more information, check out \"Fact Sheet #17B\" from the US Department of Labor at this link: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nFor more information about the FLSA, you can start at the USDoL's FLSA website: [_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\n**Caveats:** This assumes a USA legal context. This is not an all-inclusive set of exemptions, only a starting point for you to explore more at your leisure, and to provide some context for the ELI5 answer. Also, IANAL and this is not legal advice. Context matters -- to explore the arrangement for a specific CEO/company in more depth, you'd need to start by talking with a lawyer and/or the DoL."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17b_executive.pdf",
"http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/"
]
] |
|
7511i1
|
how can you lift heavier than you weigh
|
I know you can, but I just don't understand how people can lift three times their body weight.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7511i1/eli5_how_can_you_lift_heavier_than_you_weigh/
|
{
"a_id": [
"do2m7sf",
"do2m9to",
"do3jq01"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of it more mechnically. A car jack can lift a car, despite weighing distinctly less. While strength is often proportional to weight, it's not limited by it. A combination of the materials we're made up of, the stresses they can bear, and the leverage we can create, influences what we can lift.",
"You know that saying “it’s not the size it’s how you use it?”\n\nSame deal here, kinda. Think of a bottle opener. If you had a bottle that’s not a twist off cap, it’s really hard to open it with your fingers. Yet, take a piece of metal or even hard plastic or hard cloth and you can use it to pop open the bottle effortlessly.",
"There's nothing magic about being able to lift a load greater than your own weight. Size and strength of materials are the determining factors. Size in particular is often not well understood, so that people are amazed about how insects can easily lift many times their own body weight. The square-cube law explains it: if you're 10 times bigger (taller) then your bones and muscles have 100 times the cross-sectional area and are 100 times stronger (square law). You also have 1000 times the volume and weight (cube law). That makes it 10 times harder for you to lift your own body weight."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2cbi9e
|
are longer data cables actually slower? if so, why?
|
I've been reading some threads and even one here about HDMI and how it differs from old analog connections. If I understand correctly, analog used pulses of electricity to communicate whereas digital uses packets that travel at a certain bitrate. Does the bitrate change with distance? I'm finding information that a cable thats digital either gets there or it doesn't, but what would cause it to drop a packet if it's not pulses like analog?
Bonus: does any of this explain why my iPhone 6' lightning cable is thicker than the 1m it came with? (They're both apple cables)
Thank you, beautiful people.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cbi9e/eli5are_longer_data_cables_actually_slower_if_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjdt8wv",
"cjdugi9",
"cjdy3d1"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The longer the cable is from the source of the transmission, it will eventually succumb to attenuation, the gradual loss of signal intensity. Also, the longer an unshielded cable, the more prone it is to interference (EMI). Both attenuation and EMI will cause packet loss/corruption, which will, in turn, lead to packets needing to be re-transmitted and thus lowering the overall speed",
" > analog used pulses of electricity to communicate whereas digital uses packets that travel at a certain bitrate.\n\nYou're kind of confusing stuff here.\n\n*All* electrical devices *in the world* communicate via electrical signals.\n\nThe difference between analogue and digital signals is that a digital signal attempts to encode \"meaning\" into a series of highs & lows. The receiving device does not attempt to extract any meaning from the signal other than \"when is it high?\" and \"when is it low?\". No matter how dirty that signal gets, the receiver is going to try to understand it as a series of 0s and 1s.\n\nSo when we talk about \"packets\" and \"bits\" and so on, we're *still* talking about a series of electrical pulses; but more specifically, we're talking about the *meaning* of those pulses rather than, say, how symmetrical they are.\n\nCables are not perfect conductors, and the longer they are, the higher their impedance (ie they get worse at transmitting a signal unaltered) and the more susceptible they are to interference. If the cable gets long enough, the pulses being sent down it might get so mangled that the device on the other end can't interpret them properly.",
"ooohh. Tough question. I'll do my best. First my quals. I'm a trade qualified Data Comm tech. I have endorsements in Twisted Pair, Coaxial and Fibre optic. \nAre long cables slower? Yes. \nBut for a given value. We are not talking 1cm vs 2cm. So lets look at different things.\n1) Internet. We are often talking kilometres(miles). The distance from exchange on and ADSL2 connection can be the difference between 24Mbps and sub 4Mbps (ADSL1 standard). So yes, it is slower. Why? The longer the run, the more resistance in the cable (Attenuation). It's harder to push a signal this far. You can't just ramp up the power to get it there, or else your 'pair of copper' will get too noisy and interfere with the pair next to it (your next-door-neighbour). \n2) What about my lightning cable? These cables are fast. But they have very specific requirements. They expect no outside interference. What's outside interference? Well if 2 cables run side-by-side the signal can by 'capacitance' (Some people say induction. They're wrong!) induce a signal in the cable next to it. But it's connected to my phone. One device. What's interfering? Well, a cable can be noisy. It can pick up noise from ground. Maybe your send cable is too noisy for your receive cable. Perhaps the clock cable (I *think* that is on the lightning cable. Most data transmissions have a clock. A consistent pulse used to sychcronize data) is making noise interfering with the transmit cable. So how do you fix this? Space the cables. Make them further apart. The further apart, the less electronic 'noise'. The consequence? You need a thicker cable to account for the spacing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2o0nq7
|
why is antibiotics prescribed for flu?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o0nq7/eli5why_is_antibiotics_prescribed_for_flu/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmimcw0",
"cmimdtm"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Antibiotics are *not* (supposed to be) prescribed for influenza. It's possible that this is a case of a bacterial infection that a patient mistakenly called \"the flu\", when it wasn't actually the flu. It's also possible that the doctor prescribed antibiotics because the patient demanded it, and they didn't want to lose a patient.",
"Antibiotics are all to often prescribed because the patient expects them to be and the doctor wants to keep that patient."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2uc7ue
|
theoretically, what would happen if the tides disappeared?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uc7ue/eli5_theoretically_what_would_happen_if_the_tides/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co72chp",
"co7cisy"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text": [
"So lunar tides create gravitational stress that affects water, air AND rock. Water first.\n\nThere'd be an immediate massive extinction event on coastlines. A large number of organisms along oceans and seas relies on tides that expose them to air and then to salt water. Too much of the former and they starve or dry out. Too much of the latter and they drown. Others rely on a tidal cycle to breed, and there wouldn't be a trigger for a second generation. Many significant tidal currents, such as that found in [Canada's Bay of Fundy](_URL_0_) would immediately stop, and a lot of fishes (and the seabirds and mammals that feed on them) would suffer. Saltwater marshes would no longer flood, eventually killing their grasses and everything else in them. After a couple years the coastal world would be a mess in a lot of places. \n\nAs for rocks, in the longer term, a big chunk of the heat of rocks in the earth that's caused by tidal forces would decline.\n\nBut a corollary question is \"what would happen to make the tides disappear\"? If the moon suddenly went away somehow, a lot more life forms would be affected because they rely on the lunar cycle for light at night to feed, or navigation or for triggering a mating and breeding cycle. \n\nSo, **TL:DR**; really really bad news.",
"Ecology of the biosphere would crumble. There's a lot of other stuff at play, but a huge thing is the ocean currents would get pretty stagnant, and the ocean would deoxify. Everything under the ocean that uses oxygen would die out. Mass extinction. Fun stuff!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Fundy"
],
[]
] |
||
26zwum
|
how are batteries in watches able to last 10+ years?
|
I got this watch when I was in the 3rd grade. I'm 23 now. I haven't worn it everyday since I got it, and honestly for the majority of the time I've had it, it's been in my closet. BUT I hear it beep on the hour and the alarm go off every day on it. How is the battery not dead yet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26zwum/eli5how_are_batteries_in_watches_able_to_last_10/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chw22e9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Extremely low current parts is the reason the battery is still full enough to run. \n\nThe display is LCD, right? Black numbers on some light colored background? It takes a little energy to run the display, but it's mostly just applying a voltage difference to align black flecks to a certain angle, so they show up dark. \n\nThe timing circuit operates in a similar manner. Using a Quartz Crystal, with a voltage applied, the crystal will oscillate at the frequency needed for the clock circuit. But the crystal draws a negligible amount of current. It only takes a voltage to get it to oscillate, and the crystal is a type of semiconductor, so it behaves somewhat like a resistor (blocking the flow of electrons, therefore, very low current). \n\nThe alarm beep is a piezo-electric device, similar to the quartz crystal, so it also is low current, though it may draw more current than other parts. \n\nIf there's a light in that watch to help you see it, that would draw a lot more power than anything else, but you said it's in the closet, and you haven't really been using it then.\n\nNow, if it's a watch with hands instead of a digital watch, then there is some loss of energy due to conversion to mechanical motion, but the timing circuit there is still controlled by a quartz crystal, so the most energy lost is in the \"motor\", if you can call it that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4q70rf
|
why does discussing religion or politics get people angry so fast?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4q70rf/eli5_why_does_discussing_religion_or_politics_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4qqj30",
"d4qrv0c",
"d4qs6vi",
"d4qsj6c"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cognitive dissonance perhaps. People hold religious and political views very closely and its often part of their identity. Having that challenged isn't an enjoyable thing for your brain. ",
"Because being right in matters of religion and politics usually means everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but is stupid or evil.\n\nIf I think the vanilla ice cream is the best, I don't have a problem if you like chocolate best. It is a matter of taste, and we can happily talk about it without offending each other.\n\nThat's not so true my religion says everyone who believes something else is going to hell, and they gods are agents of Satan trying to condemn us to everlasting torment. ",
"Religious and political views define human nature/the nature of the universe and what forms a just society, respectively. I think we can all agree that those are some of the most important things. Religion and politics, for many people, are firm anchors on which to orient the world: they're cut and dry, plus people can't really give you flak for believing what you want. So when someone takes these two **extremely** important factors that each govern how someone sees the world, and tries to change them, well that could cause trouble....",
"Those things are the core beliefs of a person. When you attack them you are attacking them personally. People do not like to be personally attacked. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5pxjv4
|
why is it that a 10 minute 720p video i record with my phone is 700mb, yet a 720p 1.5 hour long movie uses less data?
|
Thank you everyone for your answers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pxjv4/eli5_why_is_it_that_a_10_minute_720p_video_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcul68h"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Before movies are distributed, the data gets carefully compressed on full-sized computers that may have spent many minutes or even hours compressing it, after the recording was complete.\n\nThe result is better compression, hence a smaller total file size."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5zpemx
|
why is globalism bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zpemx/eli5_why_is_globalism_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dezyauq",
"dezyi3j",
"dezyj73",
"dezyx40",
"dezz054",
"dezz9gp"
],
"score": [
8,
53,
4,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The idea that globalization is bad is a misunderstanding. \n Sometimes smaller businesses do have a harder time competing, especially if their product is not valued.\n\nHowever, people really are overly scared about globalization. Most trade is still not international, and most international trade is between rich countries. People don't even necessarily understand the causes of globalization. There's a perception that jobs are \"going to China,\" but many have simply been eliminated by technology.\n\nAs a more concrete example, people talk about iPhone manufacturing in China. But manufacturing accounts for only $13 of the value of an iPhone, so even if we brought all that to the US it would hardly make a difference. And even that is overstating things. Only 3.6% of value from components and value is created in China, as they assemble the iPhones, but import the parts from other countries. That's compared to 34% from Japan and 17% from Germany and even 6% from the US. So more of the manufacturing value actually comes from the US than comes from China, and where it doesn't come from the US it's mostly not actually chasing lower wages and less regulation.\n\nIn the meantime, consumers benefit from lower prices and more choice (it's believed that the poorest would lose the most purchasing power if trade were reduced), and even small business gain access to many more potential customers. So yeah, you'd be hard pressed to find an economist who supports adding barriers to trade.",
"Gobalism is not necessarily bad for everyone. In fact, if you ask an economist, they will tell you it is good overall, and they can support this with some pretty good math. Here's the ELI5 version of it:\n\nLet's say Alice and Bob are kids in a big neighborhood and have each decided to open businesses on opposite ends of their neighborhood. Both of them are running drink stands, and they both sell lemonade and iced tea. \n\nAlice has a really nice mechanical lemon squeezer, so it's easy and cheap for her to make lemonade. But, she has a hard time making iced tea, because she doesn't have any way to heat the water, except leaving it in the sun in a glass jar. It takes all day, she can't make a lot of it, and it takes a lot of effort, so she charges a lot more money for it to the kids who live near her. People still want iced tea though, so she hires her brother Charlie to help her make it.\n\nBob on the other hand has a little hotplate and an extension cord, so it's easy for him to make tea. But he has to squeeze all the lemons by hand, so that makes lemonade really expensive in his part of the neighborhood. Even so, there's a lot of demand for lemonade in his area, so he hires his sister Dee to squeeze lemons for him.\n\nNow, let's say they meet at school, and start talking about business, and they get into how much it costs them to make drinks. Bob finds out that lemonade is way cheaper on Alice's street, and vice versa. They both realize it would be easier if they could just trade drinks with each other\n\nSo they do: Alice sells Bob lemonade for way less than it would have cost him to make it himself, and she buys iced tea from him in return. Now, both streets have enough drinks for all the kids, and the price has come down. Bob's happy, Alice is happy, and the neighborhood kids are all happy that drinks are cheaper.\n\nBut here's the problem: with cheap lemonade and iced tea being brought back and forth across the neighborhood, neither Alice nor Bob need their siblings to help them make drinks anymore. They're out of a job, and they're not happy, and they raise a stink about it with mom and dad. \n\nSo that's the problem with globalism: It creates winners and losers. Overall, society is better off with free trade between countries. The companies that make goods that your country has an advantage in do well, and consumers do well because goods are cheaper. However, the companies that make goods that other countries can make for a lower cost wind up losing money and eventually going out of business. Those workers lose their jobs, and they make a huge deal out of it.\n\nThere's other arguments about \"cultural imperialism\" and environmental standards, but the biggest one that causes the most grief is the economic issue.",
"Globalism isn't necessarily good or bad. It's going to heavily depend on your point of view, ideology, and other factors when it comes to determining whether you think globalism is good or bad.\n\nHowever here are some or more common anti-globalist arguments. \n\n\n1) globalism is exploitative. Some argue that globalism exploits poorer countries for the benefit of wealthy ones. Workers in developing countries work for a pittance in horrible conditions so wealthy countries can have cheap consumer goods.\n\n2) Globalism harms the environment and allows for damage to worker rights. Many of the wealthy, developed countries in the world have strong protections in place for human rights and the environment. By making it easier to move goods and services around the world, you can circumvent those regulations. This ties into the first a lot.\n\n3) Globalism destroys native culture. This is argued both for wealthy countries and poor ones. Globalisation allows for the free exchange of people and ideas, but this can mean that traditional indigenous cultures of developing nations find their cultures displaced by Hollywood films and other things. On the other hand, other countries worry that an influx of 'others' in the form of refugees, economic migrants, or just general immigrants will force their culture to change or even destroy it.\n\n4) Globalism increases the power of big corporations. A world of free movement for people, goods, and everything else makes it easier for someone with the resources to do so to take advantage of it. You can buy where it's cheap and sell where it's expensive on a massive scale that less well equipped individuals and groups simply can't keep up with.\n\nNow I will say that I am pro Globalism, and so would try and debate each of these points. But it's important to understand the arguments against what you believe in if you're going to debate then effectively so I hope this helps fill in one side of the argument for you. ",
"The main negative effect of globalization is the drop in prices of everything.\n\nThat seems good, but not when you think about the fact that “everything” includes labor.\n\nIn a capitalist economy, the price of goods tends to drop to the lowest price available on the market. This means that the price of labor will drop to the lowest price in the world, which drives down per capita income for absolutely everyone else. Incomes will be pulled up from the lowest slightly by competition for laborers with the higher-paying areas, but most people on the world's lowest incomes can't afford to do a lot of travel. If a country wants to make something, it has to be able to do it cheaper than everyone else, which means no worker protection laws (cost companies money), no environmental protection laws (cost companies money), no consumer protection laws (cost companies money). Bye-bye, standard of living! Hello, third-world income levels!\n\nBut it's all worth it. You'll live in abject poverty, but products will be cheaper.\n\nProbably.\n\nUnless companies with global monopolies on products decide to give up on low prices like they have with pharmaceuticals.\n\nBut that won't happen, right?",
"Globalism could refer to multiple, loosely-connected beliefs.\n\nThere is economic globalism. This is something the far right and the far left both tend to agree is bad, but moderates do not. This is because, when a country elects a radical government, it doesn't always work for global business interests. Then, this leads to meddling with their economy, propagandizing against them, or even disrupting their democracy. Investors and lenders constantly monitor a country's political situation, and if they see something they don't like, they move their business elsewhere or apply a \"tax\" to their goods or services. Often this means far right or far left governments will cause capital to rapidly flow out of the country and a create a constant cycle of economic crisis and recovery.\n\nThen there is \"cultural\" globalism, which is the idea that all human cultures are compatible if they communicate, compromise, and work out problems in good faith. Others believe this is impossible, and everybody should not leave where they \"came from.\" For example, western supermarkets have had policies against obscuring the face to prevent theft and robbery, which makes perfect sense to westerners, but some cultural traditions regard full or partial facial covering as necessary to feel modest. Though migration has been a staple of the human population for 100,000 years, it sometimes leads to conflict and it sometimes doesn't.\n\nThen there are those who believe some unknown forces are conspiring to create a \"one world\" government. Generally this government is portrayed as ominous or evil, but I'm not sure why.",
"It's a loaded question. Globalism isn't bad, nor is it good. Whether *you* find it good or bad will depend on what *you* like. Some people find it frightening, others find it liberating."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4hc8b5
|
what's the deal with ttip? i hear a lot of people saying it's terrible, but is it that bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hc8b5/eli5_whats_the_deal_with_ttip_i_hear_a_lot_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2ozml9",
"d2p065y",
"d2p08y2",
"d2p0c62",
"d2p0nd2",
"d2p10a9",
"d2p2jxf",
"d2p3m4d",
"d2p3qs5"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
49,
3,
2,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Your comment makes it sound like you trust most world leaders to do what's best for you and your peers rather than themselves and their peers.\n\nIt's an easy topic to google, but [here's one](_URL_0_) that seemed rational and somewhat thorough.\n\nThe fact that the negotiations are secret and result in huge inscrutable volumes with lots of sneaky stuff thrown in is bad enough, but the publicly declared stuff makes it suspicious from the start. Increased involvement of corporations in legislation and regulation, and opening new markets to exploitation by massive corporations another big deal. There's plenty more.\n\nBut it seems like a bad idea to assume because world leaders are on board that it must not be so bad. Most world leaders are extremely wealthy and it is in their interest to protect their assets by propping up huge corporations and enabling them to leech off the public with their political power. The US is hardly a representative democracy at this point and is increasingly plutocratic, and a lot of the TTIP sounds like involving/copying the US models for capitalism and industry regulation in the EU.\n\nI'm just cynical and don't trust anyone though, so it's best to just google up on it yourself.",
"okay, you elect some guy who votes for some guy who sits together with some other guys and they agree that some thing is good for basically everybody. They have differences and discuss a lot of things but agree to not tell anybody what they are deciding for everybody.\n\n So you are sitting there, you don't know what exactly is up, the guy you elected to represent you doesn't really know what's up and the guy he elected won't talk about what's up but insists on everything being great for everybody. \n\nNow some details reach you, they are worrying and if possible you would like to see your interests in all that better represented, the guy you elected agrees but the guy he elected doesn't care - you still don't know what's really up but that guy on top continues to tell you everything is gonna be great.\n\nAt the end of the day you have no vote whether that good thing for everybody should happen, maybe even the guy you voted for doesn't get to vote or has no possibility to make an informed decission over some time whether this thing is good, the top guy really just wants that thing to happen and doesn't really care if anybody gets to vote.\n\n",
" > but I find it tough to believe it's mostly bad if many of the world leaders are signing off on it.\n\nfamous last words.... But for the ELI5:\n\nImagine you're in kindergarten and the kindergarten teachers keep telling you of their marvelous plan they have for an exchange with the kindergarten across town. They rave on and on about how playtime will be ever so much more fun, and how it will result in more snacks for the children of both kindergartens and longer nap-time, as well as increasing the teachers' salaries, and who knows, they might even buy an extra swing for the playground if everything works out well!\n\nThat's all pretty great and all, so during lunchtime you ask one of the teachers, what games exactly you will get, which kind of swing and which kind of snack. You remember that last year all the kindergartners went on strike because they wanted their regular broccoli snacks replaced by mars bars, and you've been enjoying your mars bars ever since.\n\nBut instead of answering your questions, the teacher just tells you, you are not allowed to know, all these things are secret and you're not allowed to know anything about it.\n\nSo you ask your parents about it, they go to a PTA meeting to ask on your behalf, and after long discussions they get told they can have this information, but they're not allowed to pass it on or discuss it with you.\n\nSo you still don't know what the cooperation with the other kindergarten might actually entail, but you find out that they do not have mars bars for snacks over there. In fact they are still forced to eat **stupid broccoli**, and there's now a rumor that once this goes through, you can kiss your mars bars goodbye, and you'll have to eat **disgusting broccoli** again!\n\nSo you and your fellow kindergartners start to try an eavesdrop on the conversation your kindergarten teachers have, and you find out, that the parties who are discussing this cooperation are : your teachers, the local farmers, the company that produces games, and the carpenter who would create the swing in the playground. Thing is, the carpenter already produces the see-saw and it's kind of shoddy.\n\nArmed with all this this information you confront the teachers with your concerns about a sucky swing, broccoli an the conflict of interest about the game company helping decide which games to by.\n\nBut they still refuse to give you any information about it. \n\n\nSo now you have to wait until next Monday, until Greenpeace releases the content of the cooperation with the kindergarten across town, to find out if you'll have to eat **broccoli**.\n\n\n",
"ELI5: What does TTIP stand for?",
"This is the best way to get you up to speed on the context around the trade deals that are bending you over: _URL_0_",
"I wouldn't base your opinion on the TTiP from what you're told on Reddit. These kinds of agreements are very complex and to understand exactly what they mean is no easy task. \n\nPeople like to take sections of these document out of context and write off all of the benefits.\n\nI'm no expert. But neither are the people on Reddit. Have a look on Google and find some reputable sources that explain several view points.",
"Trade agreements are difficult to negotiate with transparency because they are just that, negotiations. Every thing in it is either a benefit, a concession or a compromise. So pretty much the majority of the agreement is going to be made up of things that are going to appear to be at least somewhat detrimental to each country when taken in isolation. But for each of those presumably there is another item that is even more beneficial. But different items affect different people so the people who are adversely effected are going to start screaming when the details come out, and it may not be obvious that *this* item was necessary to to get *that* item. \n\nWorse still, for very complex agreements like the TTIP, how can we be sure that the people negotiating it on our behalf even have the right priorities?",
"Reddit isn't the place for anything Economics or Politics, Dunning-Kruger and bias is too damn high.",
"The podcast Planet Money did a show on it and other trade deals like it a while back, and I found it pretty enlightening. People don't like these kinds of things for two big reasons that I can see: * + ** ***\n\n1. The deals are done in secret. Each country is trying to maximize the benefit to their people and minimize the cost. Very specific wording, terminology, and accounting goes into them to obfuscate loopholes that advantage one party or clarify potential loopholes for the other. Additionally they're negotiations, so a lack of perfect information helps the better negotiator, and each party is betting that they have the better negotiator. For example, imagine your party is pushing you to put into place a... 3% tariff on... watermelons. If everyone in the world knows you're negotiating for at least 3%, then the other party knows that they can use that as leverage to get the 6% tariff THEY want for... cantaloupes. If that 3% benchmark is kept secret, on the other hand, then when you start with a 10% tariff on watermelon and 2% on cantaloupes, the other party will feel satisfied when they managed to whittle you down to to ONLY 5% on watermelon (when you only needed 3%), but it meant they had to agree to a 4% on cantaloupes. Basically, your party came out ahead due to your expert negotiations, but it was only possible because of secrecy.\n\n2. It's not directly elected leaders who write these up, and big business has a LOT of influence on what deals are accepted. Here in the US, textile manufacturing has gone way down while the tech sector has soared in the past few decades. From a Utilitarian standpoint, the way to do the most good for the greatest number of people would be to make deals that help the tech sector more, even if it means the textile industry has to take a hit. That sounds great, unless you're a little bespoke suit-maker in Portland or New York, in which case it starts to look like your duly elected representative threw you under the bus to help some assholes in silicon valley make ANOTHER couple million dollars. Combine that with current mistrust in congressional corruption due to citizens united, and you've got a bit of a powder keg. Hope that helps!\n\n* Not an economist\n+ Not an industry insider\n** Paycheck comes from the federal government\n*** Two or three drinks deep"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-the-problem-ttip-ceta/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/TGLGKghQlgY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
10c4de
|
what happens when system32 is deleted?
|
The title says it all, what happens to the computer after the deletion of the system32 folder?
Note: DO NOT DELETE YOUR SYSTEM32!!!!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10c4de/eli5_what_happens_when_system32_is_deleted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6c647e",
"c6ca2w8"
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text": [
" > what happens to the computer \n\nNothing at all will happen to the computer, your installation of windows may stop working though and you'll need to either repair or reinstall it. ",
"You can't delete System32 (completely) when running Windows, cause there are the core files and many of them will be in use. So if you really want to find out, you have to run a Linux live CD and delete the folder from there. After that your Windows won't run, and you'd have to reinstall."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3caame
|
why don't websites use java or html5 instead of adobe flash for videos and other interactive content?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3caame/eli5_why_dont_websites_use_java_or_html5_instead/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csto2fe",
"cstof6h",
"cstojnv"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Java got decided against long ago, in large part due to startup time (though not entirely). You don't want to have to wait 10 seconds for your video player to start up, but early editions of Java in the browser had really lengthy startup delays. Even if Java works well nowadays, nobody ships the plugin by default anymore because it got a bad reputation and thus there's no demand for it.\n\nHTML5 works fine, and lots of people are using it nowadays, but it's not supported on older browsers that are still in use, whereas Flash works on basically everything. There are also compatibility problems due to HTML5 being implemented independently by different browser makers, whereas there's only one implementation of Flash, so your code is much more likely to work the same on everyone's browser if you're using Flash.\n\nAlso, there's simply a lot of inertia. Flash was the only options for a lot of years (Java was crap and HTML5 didn't exist yet), so a lot of people have a Flash-based solution that already works, and they don't want to spend a bunch of effort reimplementing it in something else.",
"Java as a browser plug-in has too many problems now, out of growing unpopular and thus unused over decades. Some of the problems are, poor security, slow start, poor integration with the rest of the page, and usually not installed. The Flash plug-in, as bad as it is, simply is still a better choice in these aspects.\n\nHTML5 requires moving away from how things were down previously, Flash. This takes time and money. It also requires a reasonably up-to-date browser, which is often harder to get than an up-to-date Flash plugin, so long-date websites have reasons to fear breaking compatibility.\n\nAs an aside, there is still little support in HTML5 for obfuscated restrictions on video viewing. This means if a website wishes to prevent you from recording a video on your computer to re-watch it without paying again, HTML5 doesn't offer much for that. There are relatively recent options, but they're expensive and limited. Flash, as a compiled language with access to video buffers, enables apps to try and hide clear access to the video and everything.",
"Workflow and tools.\n\nHate it or loathe it, Flash has been around for a long while, and was the basic standard for introducing any kind of rich media or interactive content in your sites. Adobe produced a solid, mostly practical tool chain for it, and a lot of people learned how to use it, both to build full Flash sites, or really clever embedded content for normal HTML sites.\n\nA lot of people learned how to use Flash, a lot of people patched their browsers to accommodate its quirks. Flash has A LOT of momentum.\n\nEnter HTML5 - largely supported by amateur-grade software, still hugely dependent on a lot of coding, it's actually being adopted faster than you'd think, with Youtube switching to an HTML5 player and a lot of companies following suit. Sexy and advanced as HTML5 is, it's a new standard not supported by a single software producer. That makes its tools (to date) less sexy, less practical, more tweak-oriented.\n\nGive it time. HTML5 (which is based on Javascript, which I'm thinking you confused with Java. No one takes Java seriously unless they're universities who need a safe language to teach their students) has come a long way, and as soon as the designer pool who prefers Flash die off of old age, you'll get HTML5 applications only.\n\nThat said, I can't think of a recent, new, serious site that still used Flash, or that launched using Flash. As a technology, Flash is definitely obsolete."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
frtfw1
|
why do drummers put towels and the like in their bass drums?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/frtfw1/eli5_why_do_drummers_put_towels_and_the_like_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flxkd5z",
"flxmfwk",
"flxs0hg",
"flxsj61"
],
"score": [
27,
11,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"If the bass drum “rings” too much when it’s played, it can make the entire sound of the band sound unclean.\n\nPutting towels or pillows or whatever else in there gives the drum a more “dead” sound that doesn’t ring as much, which sounds a lot cleaner.",
"The towels and pillows will absorb some of the sound that resonates in the drum. It means you have to hit it harder to get the same sound volume but more importantly the resonance will die off much sooner. If you hit an undampened bass drum you can hear it ring for up to half a second later which is far into the next beat. If you dampen the drum it will become quiet much sooner so the tones sound much sharper.",
"There’s already a lot of good responses in here but I’ll add that when a drum head is struck (in this case the bass head is hit with the kick pedal), vibrations move out of the drum head, down the shell and reverberate with the resonant head on the other side. \n\nDampening devices, towels, pillows, blankets and whatever else disrupt these vibrations and shorten the time period where you can hear sound.",
"Makes the sound more of a thud and less of a boom. Otherwise, it would ring out more like a tom."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2tvcjv
|
how does a wankel rotary engine work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tvcjv/eli5how_does_a_wankel_rotary_engine_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co2n3cz",
"co2n5hj",
"co2trct"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ this video explains it. ",
"_URL_0_ \n\nYeah I read the rules, a link to a video explains this way better than I could. Also, google is your friend....",
"[Here's a simple gif showing how it works](_URL_0_).\n\nEssentially the four stages of a typical engine cycle - Intake, compression, ignition and exhaust (suck, squeeze, bang, blow) happen in the space between the rotor and the walls of the housing. There are seals between the apexes of the sides of the rotor and the housing so that the contents of each of those spaces are contained in those spaces. \n\nAs opposed to the much more common reciprocating piston engines, the Wankel engine has advantages in simplicity, smoothness, compactness, high revolutions per minute, and a high power-to-weight ratio. It's less fuel efficient though. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCgl2uumlI"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCgl2uumlI"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/iM0YzNB.gif"
]
] |
||
2ia5hx
|
what is the difference between soldering and welding?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ia5hx/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_soldering_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl08mqy",
"cl08p41",
"cl08su7"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"In soldering only the filler metal is melted, it is a different metal from the work piece and melts at a lower temperature. In welding the work piece is heated until it starts to melt and the two parts flow together. If a filler is used it is made of the same metal as the work piece.",
"Both are methods for joining two metals together, but the main difference is in the temperature used and as a result weather the metal pieces to be joined are themselves melted.\n\nSoldering involves relatively low temperatures in which the solder melts but the metals to be joined together do not. As long as the metals being joined are clean the solder will adhere to them and create a bond.\n\nWelding uses much higher temperatures and involves melting of the materials being joined together.\n\nAn intermediate of sorts between soldering and welding is braizing. Brazing uses temperatures higher than soldering but lower than welding. In Brazing the materials being joined are not themselves melted (like soldering) but the temperatures are hot enough to melt the material used to join them.",
"Soldering is at a much lower temperature, because the melting point of tin is only 231.93 °C (449.47 °F). Also soldering is used to \"glue\" components to a circuit board, if the temperature would be to high, the components would overheat and wont be usable anymore. \nWelding is used to \"glue\" metal constructions together. Metal constructions have to be sturdy most of the time, sturdy metals have a higher melting point, thus welding is melting metals together at a higher temperature than soldering."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
b04aoz
|
how does everything, like fossils, abandonded civilizations, and old roads get buried meters deep over time? where does all the dirt come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b04aoz/eli5_how_does_everything_like_fossils_abandonded/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eic4x6m",
"eicav2j",
"eicosva"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Each case would have a unique answer, but the major causes would be floods, wind, volcanoes, erosion of surrounding hills/mountains, geological movement of the Earth’s crust, people building on top of old sites and vegetation (one layer of plants grows on top of an old layer of plants - it’s slow but over thousands of years they can lay down quite a bit of organic soil).",
"All you need is one tree that drops its leaves every late autumn.\n\nThose leaves will become dirt. That there will be growth upon. And then there will be new leaves. That become dirt.\n\nOver the decades, it adds up.\n\nThat ain't the entire truth, of course. But trees contribute a lot to making rocky land fertilised.\n\nIf you climb a mountain and find just one single tree far up there, you'll often notice that there is a thin layer of dirt and some grass growth right next to it, that you can kind of imagine is spreading out some over time. Same principle, it just takes more time when there is so little for it to attach to.",
"There’s a selection effect here. The stuff that doesn’t get buried is exposed to weather. Somebody might decide to demolish the exposed stuff for various reasons- they want to use the land or materials for some other purpose, the structure becomes an eyesore or a hazard, or cultural ideals change and the object is now considered offensive (like the Taliban with the Bamiyan Buddhas). People generally don’t intentionally demolish buried objects. That means more buried objects survive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
562i8n
|
what is a ketone and how does it vary from glucose to create the positive effects health benefits claimed to be had of a low-carb or ketogenic diet?
|
I've looked around online a little and can't find an answer to this question exactly. I keep finding the same generic answer that when fat metabolites it creates ketones and then depending if Im on a site about a low-carb diet or one about diabetes then it varies on how good or bad ketones are. I understand carbs breaking down to sugar or glucose and the body burning that as energy and when carbs and sugar aren't present the body burns fat and it creates ketones that can help with mental clarity, lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol and seemingly lots of other positive benefits but why does that happen and what is it about ketones that create this better effect on the body? Essentially, ELI5 what is a ketone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/562i8n/eli5_what_is_a_ketone_and_how_does_it_vary_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8fshxk",
"d8fswgf",
"d8fu4vl",
"d8fuy5o"
],
"score": [
11,
12,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Ketone Bodies are a variety of molecules that your tissues produce as a sort of \"last resort\" option IF your liver and muscle run out of glycogen (stored glucose polymer). Basically, your liver and muscle are constantly offering blood glocose in the normal fed state BUT if you go on a low/no carb diet, there is little to no stored glycogen. Your brain, for one, cannot be devoid of nutrients, so, tissues respond by oxidizing (breaking down) non carbohydrate sources for fuel - \"ketone bodies\" for the blood and brain.\n\nIn terms of \"health,\" on this low carbohydrate diet one loses weight fast b/c glycogen weighs ~20%-30% more than fat b/c it is stored with a lot of water (high density).",
"We're talking about specific ketones called ketone bodies. Ketones are a class of small organic molecules that even include some types of sugar. Ketone bodies are a sub-category of three of them, which are related to how the body processes fat. What happens is when there isn't enough blood sugar, the body breaks down stored fat. The result of fat breakdown can go through what's called the kreb's (or citric acid) cycle, which is a pathway that the body would normally use in burning sugars as well. However because of the chemistry involved there might not be the right chemical balance to run that cycle. For example inside the liver when its trying to make more blood sugar, a process called gluconeogensis. Instead the products from breaking down fatty acids can be converted to ketone bodies. Some people believe that because some of the same enzymes are used to form ketone bodies as to create cholesterol that ketogenesis would limit the ability to make cholesterol, however they occur in different places in the body and are regulated interdependently there's no direct reason for cross-over. \n\nAll this goes on in the liver as it produces sugar from fat, this stuff is essentially a byproduct. The brain needs sugars or ketone bodies that can get past the blood-brain barrier in the way large fatty acids can't. Most of the body's tissues can just handle burning fatty acids directly and aren't responsible for producing extra sugar, they go through the citric acid cycle and the electron transport chain to produce energy like normal. Almost any cell, except the liver itself and those without mitochondria like the red blood cells, can gain energy from ketone bodies, but for the most part they prefer just using fatty acids themselves, and ketogensis is limited by other factors like the production of acetone which is toxic and the fact that they acidify the blood. The body can manage those things reasonably well unless there's another problem, like diabetes leading to diabetic ketoacidosis. \n\nAs for all the other supposed benefits, well maybe it helps with mental clarity, high blood sugar can cause sleepiness. But its unlikely to be anything overly drastic. However the main benefit is probably that it burns fat, which many people want. ",
"The brain uses glycogen which is derived from carbs and to fuel it's processes. In the absence of carbs there is no glycogen so the brain will die. Except no because the brain can also be fueled by ketones which is derived from fat cells. As long as you have carbs in your body there will be glucose in your blood to fuel your brain and you're in a state of glycolysis. When the carbs are depleted fat is burned and ketones fill your blood, now you're in a state of ketosis. The benefit is that because the fat on you is being used to create ketones it will deplete and you will get skinnier. I am on a ketogenic diet right now and have been losing around 1.2 lbs a day.",
"If you're asking about the physical differences [check here](_URL_1_)\n\nIn terms of how the body makes and uses ketones, read on. \n\nWhen your body metabolizes protein and fat it is more efficient for it to be broken down into ketone bodies. Ketones are similar in structure to sugars like glucose but have extra carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen groups. \n\nIt's not that ketones are good for you, in fact if you go fully ketogenic you can get ketoacidosis which isn't good for you. Ketones lower the PH of your body so if you get too many flooding your system, your body has to dump some in your urine. This causes extra work for your kidneys. It's that ketogenic diets can help people lose weight. Any diet can do the same as less calories in than burned = weight loss. If you want to read more about an actual study on ketosis _URL_0_\n\nIn fact when you are getting energy from ketones your body has usually switched it's metabolism over to a starvation strategy and it's going to hang onto any calories it can and be very conservative with giving them up. This is one of the reasons why food cravings on high protein diets can be so strong, and why people who wash out can suddenly gain a lot of weight. \n\nBasically your answer has to do with causality. Ketones don't make you lose weight, but if you are losing weight, you definitely have ketones in your blood. Ketosis is your bodies response to insufficient calorie intake and its the primary way that we burn fat for energy. The ketones themselves are incidental. If you ate 5,000 calories of meat and fat every day you would gain plenty of weight yet still be in ketosis. \n\nAlso regarding cholesterol, there are medications you can take that will affect HDL and LDL levels, but outside of that, cholesterol levels in the blood may have more to do with your genes than your diet. That isn't to say that it doesn't matter what you eat, but that your genetic pre-disposition to high cholesterol levels matters more. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/",
"http://image.slidesharecdn.com/05lecturemacromolecules-150103182836-conversion-gate02/95/ting-anh-chuyn-ngnh-sinh-hc-05-lecture-presentation-15-638.jpg?cb=1420331543"
]
] |
|
1i9fns
|
why did the dreamcast lose the console war against ps2?
|
My dad got me and my brother a Dreamcast when we were kids and I always found it superior to my friend's PS2 and my own N64, at least when it came to graphics. I do think some games lacked storylines and characters as memorable as titles for the other consoles. If you're able, explain how the system worked differently than PS2 and N64 to arrive at such visuals.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i9fns/eli5_why_did_the_dreamcast_lose_the_console_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb29kwt",
"cb2fcgo",
"cb2i9lf",
"cb2ndjt"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For kids: Everyone wanted a PS2. It was more popular before it even existed.\n\nFor adults: The PS2 had a DVD drive. The Sega Dreamcast? No piracy protection. Guess which one lost more money on software? \n\nEA cared about these things.\n\nThe PS2 could render more polygons. The Sega Dreamcast? Better textures and built in shaders. Guess which numbers fanboy graphics whores thought more important? Hint: They were just coming from a generation where a single 2d triangle counted as a finger. If there were fingers. Ironically, Final Fantasy XII would use less polygons than FFX in order to improve textures and lighting. Tekken Tag Tournament has more polygons per model than the 2 sequels that came after. \n\nThen there was the advertising. Sony claimed the PS2 was more powerful than the computers that made The Phantom Menace, and a possible source of WMD destruction. Sega claimed the Dreamcast could put less polygons on the screen than some of their 3rd parties achieved, because they wanted to play it safe. Sony laughed at Sega, and claimed they weren't even competition.\n\nAs for why it blew away the N64, well, there are Atari 2600 games that eat 8 times more memory than the N64's texture data, and that low resolution wasn't helping anyone. My mom looked at No Mercy, and asked why my television wasn't working. ",
"The Dreamcast failed because it had no DRM support and for a console that used CDs for it's game content, people pirated the fuck out of it. No one made money off the machine, so, it failed economically. ",
"2 words: Boot Disc",
"A lot of people are mentioning piracy but the Dreamcast lost the race before that became an issue. Sega *really* fucked up with their previous console, the Saturn. This left the public reluctant to invest in the Dreamcast. This also didn't leave them with much money to do marketing. Sony, OTOH, was able to hype the fuck out of the PS2 long before it launched.\n\nA lot of people just didn't buy a Dreamcast because they wanted to save their money for a PS2."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ousos
|
why is luxembourg's per capita income so high?
|
I'm aware of the fact that it's a tiny country w/ a population of slightly more than half a million but still, how come a country so small in population could have a GDP of over 52 million (2.5 times more than my country, Nepal that has a population of almost 30 million)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ousos/eli5_why_is_luxembourgs_per_capita_income_so_high/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccvukqj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"because it's a tax haven for a bunch of international companies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4bsueb
|
why do museums, like the smithsonian, have way more artifacts than they could ever possibly display?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bsueb/eli5_why_do_museums_like_the_smithsonian_have_way/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1c2s1a",
"d1c2x9r",
"d1c33c9",
"d1c9p0n"
],
"score": [
3,
113,
32,
3
],
"text": [
"Ostensibly because then they can rotate things out. Do an Egyptian themed display one month, something Greek next month and then ancient China at the end of the year.\n\nEdit: museums are also a good place e to store things, where they will be cared for and studied by people actually willing to take the time to do those things.",
"Museums do a lot more than receiving visitors. They don't just let them sit in a corner collecting dust. They have a lot of scientists and historians study them and learn more about them. In addition other museums and scientists can borrow them if they need specific artifacts for a project. ",
"The two primary purposes of museums are to display objects, and to store and care for them. A good chunk of objects in any museum's collection are there to be taken care of, not to be displayed to the public. In many cases it's because the objects are too fragile to be displayed (either they're not structurally sound, or because displaying them will cause significant damage to them). Maintaining the condition of these objects is an important function of many museum professionals such as conservators and collections managers, and to that end museums work to preserve culturally and historically significant objects so that they aren't destroyed or lost regardless of whether they're in good enough condition to display.",
"Most of it is for preservatory purposes. For example, if you were someone who lived in Syria and had a minor collection of local artifacts, and you wanted to hide those artifacts from the conflict in the region, you would probably hand them over to a famous and trustworthy museum, such as the Smithsonian."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
52akzr
|
why people are "proud" of things they never had to work for (being born a certain nationality/race/gender/orientation/etc).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52akzr/eli5_why_people_are_proud_of_things_they_never/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7inqng",
"d7ins1b",
"d7ip9p5",
"d7ipuqr",
"d7ivnbx",
"d7ja7vd"
],
"score": [
5,
116,
57,
5,
32,
3
],
"text": [
"Because each nationality/race/gender/sexuality/religion comes with its own set of struggles and stereotypes , so one should be proud of how far their people and/or ancestors have come or what they have achieved. ",
"This gets down to a very basic human instinct called *tribalism.* We *tend to be* inherently fond of whatever group we are part of -- our village, our nationality, fans of our favorite team, even owners of a certain kind of car.\n\nOver time this instinct has enabled humans to stick together in groups that are much more effective (at survival and reproduction) than if we each went our own way.",
"You're not proud of being gay per se. You're proud of the struggles gay people went through and came out (no pun intended) on the other side stronger than ever. You're proud that you can be openly gay. You're proud of the people who fought and struggled -- let alone suffered -- to get us to this place. There may still be barriers - and you're proud to be one of the people who will tackle them.\n\nSame with being, for example, black. You're proud of all the things black people before you, who had to overcome *huge* barriers for us to be where we are today. You're proud that we came out through the struggle stronger. And by expressing your pride, you are expressing the fact that we will not stop so long as there is still a *single bit* of segregation. \n\nSo how about being, say, of Italian heritage? Well, you see that word \"heritage\"? You can -- and should -- be proud of what your ancestors accomplished. The art, the culture, the food!\n\n\"Pride\" doesn't mean thinking you're better than others. It means you want to *share* who you are, share your culture, your beliefs, your *contributions* with others. By extension, you want to *learn* about them, too. Pride (in this context, anyway) is *inclusionary*. That's why we have parades - to share. That's why people come to our parades and cheer us on, and that's why we go to *their* parades and cheer *them* on! ",
"You're proud in the sense that you're glad to be who you are, and you wouldn't change if you could.",
"I always understood pride in this sense to be less the \"I am proud of myself for having coincidentally been born in group XYZ\" definition and more the \"Fate hath decreed that I be born in group XYZ and I refuse to let anyone shame me for it\" definition, and \"shamelessness\" doesn't sound as good as \"pride\" and A definition of \"pride\" (which may not necessarily be the most commonly understood definition) still technically fits.",
"Pride is a response to being shamed,\n\nOften members of oppressed minority groups can internalize the negative stereotypes about their group and become ashamed of who they are. Pride groups try and combat this by saying you shouldn't be ashamed of being who you are, but should embrace it. Pride is about excepting the traits you cant control and not letting negative stereotypes effect how you view yourself. \n\nThere is a reason why we have black, and gay pride festivals, but German and Irish heritage festivals. Pride is a tool used to fight discrimination.\n\nMost of the time when people say \"I'm proud to be....\" they mean \"I'm not ashamed to be....\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5nb8k3
|
how did the feeling of homesickness benefit prehistoric humans and why did we develop it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nb8k3/eli5_how_did_the_feeling_of_homesickness_benefit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dca5ii2",
"dca5or8"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I am in no way an expert and this is just guesswork. Homesickness probably helped some earlier humans survive by stopping them from exploring. If you think about it, it makes sense; their home has to be pretty safe, otherwise they would die or would be traumatized and wouldn't long for it. By leaving that safe home to explore unknown and possibly dangerous places, they are putting their lives in jeopardy. Homesickness stops the exploration, and people stay healthy and alive",
"I've read a few research pieces on this topic, so although I'm no specialist maybe I can offer an explanation.\n\nHumans, unlike most (if not all) animals on Earth, have very little in the way of natural defence - our skin is bare, we don't have extra-sharp teeth or claws and we don't have the benefit of four legs for speed, so our greatest defence is our intellect and our social circles. Family units and tribal groups provide safety in numbers, so it is in a human's best interest evolutionarily speaking to stay within a social circle and maintain a bond with this circle for as long as possible.\n\nWhat encourages us to stay within these social groups is the human need to belong - to 'fit in' and to remain that way, so as to prolong the chances of staying within a protective social circle and therefore heightening our chances of surviving danger. Humans have an insane amount of qualities which enable us to form lasting bonds and maintain these bonds on a social level. This is an incredibly simplified version of 'belongingness theory'.\n\nOnce a human being relocates geographically, leaving this social circle and safe home environment that has provided them with physical and emotional support, they feel an emotional pang of 'homesickness', which is essentially the drive to be within that safe, supportive space that 'home' (generally) is. As they say, home is where the heart is.\n\nSo, one key explanation for homesickness is that the feeling of homesickness is the emotional distress we experience when being away from an environment we perceive to be safe, comfortable and familiar - which in turn explains why we mostly feel homesickness during times of stress, or being in unfamiliar environments, or generally going through some negative experiences/thoughts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
tcd9t
|
can someone explain freud's psychoanalytical theory of personality like i'm five?
|
ID, Super EGO, EGO, and distinct stages of infant and childhood development.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tcd9t/can_someone_explain_freuds_psychoanalytical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4le6c1",
"c4lefr8"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"That's **a lot** of ground to cover. I'll give you the absolute basics and you can always ask for more info. Also, remember that the concepts are fairly outdated.\n\nID: ID is the part of your brain that wants every sort of pleasure all the time. It's your drive to take what you want.\n\nEgo: This is the organised part of your brain that balances the ego and the superego\n\nSuperego: This is the moralising part of the brain. It tells you what you **should** want but ignores the ID.\n\nFreud's stages of psychosocial development were essentially stages where, if not completed properly, the person has a weakness that they'll spend their life trying to fix. These stages are about unconscious battles between drives and \"growing up\". ",
"Simply put, the Id is like a baby - it does not care about repercussions, it just WANTS anything, good or bad, moral or immoral... The Superego is like the baby's nanny that always follows it around; the superego is there to say \"no, that's BAD\"... The Ego is the mediator between the Id and Superego with attributes from both (sometimes more Id, sometimes more Superego).\n\nThe stages of psychosexual development refer to the source of pleasure for the individual: what makes him/her feel good\n1. oral - pleasure is derived from the mouth (eating/drinking)\n2. anal - pleasure is derived from the anus (bowel control - the ability to potty train)\n3. phallic - pleasure is derived from the genitals - this stage is quite complicated\n4. latency period - not a stage of sexual development, but the time between stages 3 & 5\n5. genital - pleasure is derived from the genitals via mature (or semi-mature) sexual stimulation\n\n...that's my best shot at explaining these concepts very simply... perhaps the wording would be different for an actual 5 year-old, but there you go."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1zq0uz
|
why is it that exploration instruments get crushed passed a certain limit from water pressure yet deep sea organisms can survive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zq0uz/eli5_why_is_it_that_exploration_instruments_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfvwdl7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"(Absolute) pressure is not a problem at all.\n\nDifferential pressure, on the other hand, is a bitch."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1e0q1p
|
why stock images are so weird
|
After seeing many goofy ones on the front page it made me think.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e0q1p/eli5_why_stock_images_are_so_weird/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9voezv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The purpose of stock image libraries are to provide every possible image you might want so you don't have to make it yourself. Suppose you were writing an article and wanted an image of a Caucasian woman holding a teakettle and looking slightly disgusted. Instead of looking for an actor, photographer, and props you just search a library and pick one.\n\nWhat this means for the makers is that they have no idea what you want but will just generate content when they can. With the actor and photographer ready, the studio set up, why not? Get a photo with the teakettle actor looking happy, sad, angry, confused, etc. Have a broom? Lets go! Some guy brought a sheep in for some other shoot? Get shots in every outfit you can think of, because this is probably the only time it will be here.\n\nSo then they dump it all to the library and never consider someone would want the photo of a nude woman angrily holding a sheep with a lampshade on its head."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2viork
|
regarding jail, what is the purpose of bail and the similar sounding term "bond"?
|
I hear these all the time and always get confused as to what their purposes are.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2viork/eli5_regarding_jail_what_is_the_purpose_of_bail/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cohzcub",
"cohzq0t"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Bail is money you pay to the court as a guarantee that you will show up for your trial, if you dont they keep the money.\n\nA bond is a type of loan given to help pay bail. You pay a fee to a bondsman who then pays the full bail. If you fail to show for your court date the bondsman will attempt to track you down (sometimes employing bounty hunters) or else attempt to recover the bail from your relatives who will have been required to co-sign the bond.",
"As others said, bail is the money you must pay in order to be released from custody. You get your money back if you show up for court when you're supposed to. Basically, it's a \"We'll let you go, but if you try skipping court, you'll lose a whole lot of money\" kind of deal.\n\nOften, the cost of bail is way too expensive for someone to pay out-of-pocket (who has, say, $10,000 laying around?), so we have loans called \"bonds.\" This basically means someone pays your bail for you, and you have to pay them back over time.\n\nAs for the purpose of bail and bonds, let's start with bail. First, incarceration costs everyone money, and bail frees up those resources. There's a limited number of jail cells, and incarcerated people require food, guards, etc. And it also costs employers of anyone incarcerated, since their employees can't work. And of course, those incarcerated employees don't get paid, either. \n\nSecond, bail is a manifestation of our commitment to \"innocent until proven guilty.\" We want to minimize the negative impact a criminal accusation may have on someone's life until a jury finds them guilty. Some stuff can't be avoided--cops have to arrest you before they can put you on trial. But generally, we do our best to avoid disrupting your life more than we have to. Bail allows us to free people, but still have a pretty strong assurance that they'll show up for court like they're supposed to. The higher the risk they'll flee or skip court, the more expensive we make bail so they'll be inclined to stick around to get their money back.\n\nAs for the purpose of bonds, as I said above, most people can't afford bail out-of-pocket. Bonds allow people to participate in the bail system we have, which is good for the reasons I just outlined."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4ypkr4
|
what is the difference between high and low/popular culture? which is better?
|
I'm exploring Communications and Culture for starting my A-Levels next year, and I am struggling with this concept. Any answers are appreciated!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ypkr4/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_high_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6pi7bp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Short answer is that neither is \"better.\"\n\nI'll give you an example of tension between \"high\" and \"low\" culture. (I'll use these terms because they are the terms people use, but I reject the hierarchy, hence the quotation marks.) \n\nIn the 19th century, there was a push to teach English literacy to the Irish and Indians, both having low literacy rates in English. (I'm not sure of their literacy rates in their native languages at that time.)\n\nThe idea was that the unrest in those countries (partially due to being occupied) would be quelled if those populations were assimilated into English culture and reading English literature would be a good way to assimilate those cultures. However, in Ireland, the Irish used their new-found literacy to read \"shilling shockers\" and \"penny dreadfuls,\" which were very cheap stories that were full of murder and all the seedy sides of humanity.\n\nThe English were disappointed by this, feeling like they had granted the \"lowly\" Irish with this wonderful cultural tool and they went and used it \"improperly\" for reading works that were \"bad\" for their mental development and did not assimilate them into English culture.\n\nThis is ideology in the Marxist sense: the arts are a way for a culture to reinforce its values and reproduce those values for the masses. (According to Marxists like Althusser.) But, sometimes, it simply doesn't work and this upsets the people who are following the dominant ideology.\n\nAnother example is comic books in the early part of the 20th century. They were cheaply sold to the lower-classes and, before the superhero craze, were about crime and murder and horror. Then, in 1954, Dr. Fredric Wertham wrote a book titled *Seduction of the Innocent* which argued that comics were corrupting the youth by encouraging delinquency and even homosexuality. This is laughable to us now but that's because our cultural ideology has shifted to be more accepting of depictions of crime and murder and also more accepting of homosexuality.\n\nSo, to put a somewhat too hasty end to this long comment, high culture and low culture can be thought of as two cultural ideologies trying to preserve their own artistic preferences and butting heads over the differences in those values, with the dominant group having an edge on dictating what is and isn't valuable as far as art goes. (The Comics Code forced comics makers to change their comics to reinforce \"good\" values.)\n\nThere is no better, there is just a power struggle for artistic merit. And sometimes the dominant group loses and we see art change to accept forms that were previously shunned."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
eg02gi
|
what's the difference(s) between a gaming mouse and a regular computer mouse?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eg02gi/eli5_whats_the_differences_between_a_gaming_mouse/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fc3i3or",
"fc3ka6c",
"fc3rgrv"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Generally speaking, higher DPI/precision, faster response rates, and more likely to have more buttons or other features like alterable weights. Some of these features can be found in other more business-oriented mice, but outside of gaming generally these aren't features most people want to spend money for.",
"I dont game on CPUs but buy gaming ¿mice? More durable, responsive, and can configure buttons as shortcuts like cut , paste. Again they last.",
"Former game developer here, not that it matters \\*too much\\* to the conversation, but I'm trying to establish some credibility. My wife is also in marketing, which gives me some additional perspective, which we're going to get into in a moment.\n\nWhat distinguishes a gaming mouse is typically the number of buttons and wheels on the device. The rest is all dressings. Cool paint job? Doesn't make it work better. Cool glowing light feature in the housing? Doesn't make it work better. Cool, edgy styling? Doesn't make it work better.\n\nThere may be some merit in the haptics of the device - the type of switch being pressed in the buttons, the feel of the material of the wheel and the tactile response when you roll it, the weight. Doesn't make it work better.\n\nThere may be something to say about the efficacy of those switches, and of the optics. People talk about the resolution, which the manufacturers themselves CONSTANTLY reiterate it's basically irrelevant (sales, on the other hand, will sell you anything you think important). What no one talks about, which is more important, is the polling rate, which goes to show you that if the conversation about DPI doesn't include polling rate, the person has NO CLUE what they're talking about, and are simply parroting the marketing they've been fed. AND POLLING RATE DOESN'T MATTER, just ask the manufacturers.\n\nYour mouse is a USB device. That means you're subject to the limitations of USB. Very likely it's a USB 2.0 device. I don't care if you bought a USB 3 mouse, just because it fits into the port doesn't mean it's communicating over the protocol. There's no way a cheap device mass produced in China for less than a dollar apiece, sharing almost all the same electronics as a default Dell desktop mouse is going to generate that much data. And electrons don't move over copper any faster because it's USB 3.\n\nYour mouse input is on a shared bus, and internally, your USB hub is going to share bandwidth with everything else on the south bridge. Your mouse generates data that goes into an event queue and waits to be processed, and is subject to any number of other hardware and software interrupts, context switches, multi-tasking, and higher priorities in the task pipeline.\n\nIn short, everything about your user input, including your keyboard, is subject to software latencies that are completely out of your control. There's very little you can tweak - and on Windows, nothing you can tweak, that you can deterministicly prove makes a single iota of a performance difference.\n\nAnd if your mouses is wireless, you've got bigger problems, because it's probably using an ISM type B band, which means it has to accept noisy interference. Bluetooth, for example, falls in the same 2.4 GHz band as your WiFi, which means if you move this mouse, you interfere with your network data, which means your network has to wait longer and try again to send it's data. And it means if you're sending data, you can't reliably get mouse input signals. Everything has to take it's turn, and that introduces latency. In terms of your mouse, it sends datagrams similar to UDP. There is no retry, so if it gets garbled by anything else on the same frequency, it's gone, like it didn't happen.\n\nYou want to see what real performance is like? And no really, I'm being absolutely serious - go play with an Apple IIe, or a Commodore 64. On those machines, a key press generated a hardware interrupt that stopped all computation on that system until it was immediately handled. These computers didn't have operating systems or multi-tasking, so the software response was about as immediate is physically possible, in an electric machine. The difference is at the threshold of human perception. You don't consciously realize the lag you experience in your modern computing until you compare it to one of these babies. Sadly, they don't (can't) do it like that, anymore...\n\nAlmost everything labeled \"for gaming\" is typically a gimmick, because people will pay extra for it. It also tends to be some of the cheapest and faulty shit I've ever had the displeasure of coming across. This doesn't mean go out and buy commercial grade equipment - in fact, retail home routing equipment is typically optimized far better for low latency media than the low end commercial Cisco or HP routers you can get your hands on and would likely see in a CCNA or N+ classroom, and server processors like Xeon don't have hardware acceleration for common media applications, either.\n\nI'm not going to offer too much advice, all I can say is in a world where everyone is trying to make a buck off you, it's hard to shop; don't trust the salesman; and advice isn't free anymore - if you're searching online for an opinion, you're wading through a cesspit of these \"influencer\" fucks who get paid to publish scripted reviews of these products, the sales force subverting your ability to research before you shop.\n\nThe wife and I were/are both sort of close enough to these businesses to know that this is how it goes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5v2200
|
what is a bacteriophage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5v2200/eli5_what_is_a_bacteriophage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddyn440",
"ddyn8js"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's a kind of virus that infects bacteria.\n\nThey have a very distinctive [alien/robot look](_URL_0_) but other than that I don't know what else there is to explain.",
"Bacteriophages are basically just little viruses that infect bacteria. They land on a bacterium and inject their genetic material into it. The bacteria notices the genes and replicates them to make more viruses. When it has made a certain amount of viruses it will explode and release them into its environment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/PhageExterior.svg"
],
[]
] |
||
eh0hm8
|
why do car airconditioners need a running engine to operate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eh0hm8/eli5why_do_car_airconditioners_need_a_running/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcbltc2",
"fcblu4n",
"fcbnhwa",
"fcc5302"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are 4 main components to a refrigeration system. One of them is a compressor. The compressor is turned by the engine via the accessory or serpentine belt.",
"Most of the time they are operated off the vehicle’s serpentine belt and that requires the engine to be running.",
"The cooling system requires a lot of spinning power. If this is done with an electric motor it will require a large motor and consume a ton of battery power. It's far easier to simply hook it up to the engine.",
"In gasoline or diesel engine powered cars the AC compressor is almost always run from a belt from the front of the engine, called the serpentine belt or accessory drive belt. The serpentine belt is also used to drive things like the alternator, coolant pump, and power steering assist pump. \n\n If the engine is stopped, this causes the compressor to stop pumping refrigerant through the system, causing a loss of cooling.\n\nWhile it would certainly be possible to run the compressor off an auxiliary electric motor instead, independent of whether the engine was turning, this would rapidly drain a typical starter battery if the engine is stopped, due to the relatively high power requirement of an actual system. \n\nIt would need output from the alternator to constantly recharge the battery. Otherwise you wouldn't able to restart the engine after running the AC a few minutes. \n\n You could add more batteries, but that adds weight and significant cost. Batteries are among the most expensive parts of a typical car. \n\nSo, car manufacturers chose to simply run the compressor directly from the engine. \n\nThis takes advantage of energy that might be wasted during idilng anyway. Moreover, fuel was cheap in the 50's and 60's and the waste caused by idilng with the car parked wasn't consider.\n\nIn electric cars the AC compressor is run from an electric motor from the batteries because that's the only option. In electric cars, of course, the battery pack is the primary energy source. It therefore has on the order a thousand times the capacity of the starter battery of conventional cars. So running an AC compressor is cents on the dollar in that situation. Running the AC of course will reduce the total range of the car depending on the time you spend running it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
64pu1e
|
if a day would last for 48 hrs, for how long would humans sleep and be awake ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64pu1e/eli5_if_a_day_would_last_for_48_hrs_for_how_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg42hya",
"dg42pct",
"dg43892"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The question is how long would employers try to work you if a day was 48 hours. But me personally I'd probably stay awake for 33 or so hours and sleep the rest. \n\nEdit: I have no explanation because this doesn't exist. ",
"Chances are, just double the usual, so roughly 16 hours. Longer day/night cycle would have enormous changes on how the biosphere developed and it would be adapted to the 48-hour cycle in unpredictable ways, but ignoring those implications, contemporary humans don't have insurmountable problems maintaining longer periods of sleep and wakefulness. Without environmental cues, [some people even defaulted to a 48-hour circadian cycle](_URL_0_).",
"There are two possible scenarios.\n\n- We take humans as we know them, and put them on a planet with 48-hour days\n\n- We imagine that humans had evolved not on Earth with our 24-hour days, but on some different planet with 48-hour days\n\nEach of these would have a different answer.\n\n- In the first case, the average person's body clock works on a cycle of a little over 24 hours - around 24hr 15mins, in fact. We would struggle to adapt to 48 hours if we didn't sleep half way through the day. If we just slept when we wanted, our days wouldn't line up with the planet's days, so I suspect that any civilisation in this scenario would adopt a 24-hour pattern, where every alternate sleep was night-time.\n\n- In the second case, you have to wonder why our body clock is so close to the planet's cycle. I can't provide evidence for this, but I suspect evolutionary pressures would mean people with vastly different body clocks would be selected against by natural selection (they'd be tired when they needed to be out hunting, in prehistoric time, for example). So if we'd evolved on a planet with different lengths of day, presumably we'd have evolved with body clocks that roughly matched the length of the planet's day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://news.psu.edu/story/141822/2004/06/09/research/it%E2%80%99s-about-time"
],
[]
] |
||
1969c4
|
why is it that when i'm writing with a ballpoint pen and the ink doesn't come out, i scribble on another spot, then try to right over the spot the ink didn't come out, and it won't write over it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1969c4/why_is_it_that_when_im_writing_with_a_ballpoint/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8l60a1"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Well, when the ball is rolling around it its little home, it is picking up ink from one side and when it rolls around to the other it drops it off. Sometimes dirt or oil will get on it, and the ink decides it doesn't want to play with the ball because it is dirty and doesn't want to be seen with it. So the ball just rolls along without ink and when the dirty part comes into contact with the paper, it deposits the dirt or oil instead of ink. Now when you go scribble somewhere else, the ink doesn't mind sticking to the ball because it is no longer dirty. When you try to write over the part where the oil or dirt was deposited on the paper, the ink will not stick to the paper, for the same reason it wouldn't stick to the ball earlier, being that ink is highly prejudice against dirty things."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
25adn3
|
if a spider walked on another spider's web, would it get caught or will he be able to walk on it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25adn3/eli5_if_a_spider_walked_on_another_spiders_web/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chf9kbw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Spider webs are made with sticky strands and non-sticky strands, which the spider can walk on. A spider can get caught in their own web, but doesn't because it will only walk on the non-sticky strands. Presumably if another spider came on an unknown web, it would get caught because it wouldn't know which strands are sticky or not. There is one last thing though, some species of spider have their strands in certain places only, so perhaps if the outsider spider was from the same species it might be able to figure out where the original spider put the non-sticky strands. But that is all speculation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ndnoi
|
how fast can a human accelerate on another planet (mars, jupiter, etc) without dying from g-forces?
|
So I am making a silly Python game that asks someone how fast they want to travel from a planet. Right now they have to reach at least escape velocity, but I put a max speed (I know physics, it should be max acceleration). On earth it is 300m/s^2 from my understanding (brief research). I want to make it so if a student leaves a planet too fast, they also fail. Help is appreciated.
EDIT: Example; say escape velocity is 100, and I make 1000 too fast. So fix would be ask for speed they want, and at what acceleration rate? Then depending on rate, kill/don't kill them. Is that acceleration max the same on all planets?
if speed < 100:
print("Did not reach escape velocity, you die")
elif speed < 1000:
print("Yay, you made it!")
elif speed > = 1000:
print("You went too fast, you die!")
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ndnoi/eli5_how_fast_can_a_human_accelerate_on_another/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmcmyta"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The acceleration itself provides the g-forces. What planet they are on isn't really a consideration. An upwards-traveling, spinally supported participant, trained (as one would expect from a planetary traveler) and wearing gear suited to the task at hand, can sustain upwards of 9 gs, 88 m/s^2, and upwards of 17 gs for shorter durations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
319x02
|
what is social security, and why is my generation not going to benefit from it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/319x02/eli5_what_is_social_security_and_why_is_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpzo1xd",
"cpzoe7u",
"cpzohlm",
"cpzovoe",
"cpzqw13"
],
"score": [
19,
8,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Those currently employed have a portion of their wages donated to the social security system. Meanwhile, those who have retired may be recipients of the system. The idea being to support those who worked their lives to have some sort of guaranteed income. \n\nThe problem is, people are living longer. When first implemented, people didn't live a whole lot past the earliest age they could receive benefits (65). But these days, it's quite common for people to live decades past this age, putting a strain on the system. At it's current state, the system is predicted to be unsustainable.\n\nBut that doesn't mean the current generation won't benefit from it. It simply means it will likely be reformed to either push the age back when someone may receive benefits and/or simply reduce the benefits received by future recipients. So while older generation rely heavily on pensions and social scurity, younger generations are more likely to have other retirement accounts such as 401ks or roth iras to draw from to supplement whatever social security might offer.",
"Social Security is a US government sponsored pension program. People pay 6.2% of their income (and employers match 6.2%) into the program (self employed people pay the full 12.4%) on all income up to a statutory limit (currently $118,500/yr). Then at retirement the program pays a monthly pension to those who have enough years of earnings. Unfortunately the expected rate of return on people born recently who earn incomes above a fairly low level is fairly low, though it is guaranteed. The program's assets are entirely invested in US Treasuries. \n\nLike all pension systems, statisticians who specialize in demographics do an annual analysis. They currently project that the trust fund that supports payments (for the baby boomers) will be exhausted in 2033, and at that point receipts will only cover 77% of forecast expenses. \n\nAt that point, what happens will likely be determined by politics, the two likely options include:\n\n* raising taxes to cover the outflows (given the projection that would mean something on order of the 12% being increased to 15-16% of payrolls or adjusting the upper limit or some combination of the two). \n* reducing benefits to balance (because social security is subject to income taxes this could be done via taxes rather than an actual benefit reduction). Because many people retiring after 2033 tend to be cynical about the government, they may predict this as the more likely option. \n\nOne important thing to remember about pensions is, they're sort of like a large ship, in that small changes early can have a huge effect later (a very minor change in the social security tax or benefit payments today would have a dramatic effect on the 2033 projection--possibly eliminating it from the actuaries most likely scenario). \n\nMore urgent, because the trust fund is invested in treasuries starting fairly soon, and running until 2033 the trust fund will cease to be a large buyer of US Treasuries (which allowed the non-social security part of the government to run deficits that didn't need to be funded in normal debt markets) and become a large seller of treasuries (which means the rest of government will have to issue more debt in the public markets (this is most likely), or increase taxes, or decrease spending should the public markets not wish to buy said debt). ",
"Depends on what you mean by \"my generation.\" \n\nWhen you get a paycheck, a portion is taken out for Social Security. In theory, that money is being saved specifically for you. In reality, it's not. What is really happening is that people who are retired and receiving social security right now are receiving the money that is taken out of your pay check.\n\nWhen there are a lot of workers per retiree, this scheme is sustainable. When there are not a lot of workers per retiree, SS runs out of money. When it was founded, there were 19 workers per retiree. As the population ages, there will eventually be 2 workers per retiree.\n\nIf SS doesn't change, it will keep working for a while. People in their 50s and 60s have nothing to worry about. Even people in their 40s might be fine. People in the 30s and 20s will have it extremely tough and it will likely fall apart by the time they retire and/or while they are retired. Today's teens and younger? Social security will be entirely scrapped for something else by the time they retire.\n\nThe difficulty with changing SS is that the elderly vote. Young people don't. Elderly (people receiving SS now or will be receiving it soon) don't want SS to change because they've been paying into it all their lives. So they have a strong incentive to not change SS. Even those in the 50s and 60s don't want to change it because they've been paying into it all their lives and expect something in return. Which is a problem for people in their 40s and younger, because they can't change it at all because of the voting power of those 50+.",
"Our generation will benefit from it, just not to the same extent that older generations have/are/will. A good portion of the reason is that we are expected, on average, to live longer than prior generations, which is technically a good thing...most likely they will push the retirement age to 70 or so and that should make it solvent for many more generations.\n\nThe bigger question is why have so many of us been led to believe that social security literally won't be there for us at all? Who stands to gain from manipulating the public into thinking social security is a bad idea, and why do they have so much influence? ",
"You and your friends need to vote in the federal election. And, vote for the candidates who will vote to raise the cap. If they don't raise the cap, vote them out in the next election. This is how SS will be there for you as it is now for me."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20oah7
|
whats the big threat with antibiotics?
|
Are they going to stop being effective?
All of them?
Why?
What effect will this have?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20oah7/eli5_whats_the_big_threat_with_antibiotics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg57c57"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Generally speaking, it's only about two things. (Unless you're speaking about something that I'm not aware.)\n\nIt's either the fact that when we take antibiotics, we start to kill of the bacteria that is making us ill. If you consider it, it will kill the weakest bacteria first, with the smallest doses. Then a continued dose will kill the medium strength bacteria, and prolonged doses of antibiotics will eventually kill even the strongest bacteria, and finish off the illness.\n\nNow we patients are HORRIBLE, at taking medication as described. We tend to take it until we are better, or feeling better, then either forget, or just feel like it's a bother. There-in is one of the biggest issues.\n\nRemember how we said the strongest bacteria will last the longest? That means if your antibiotic medicine says take for 7 days, and take until gone, and you only take it for 5 days and forget the rest, you have killed off most of the bad bacteria. BUT you're left the strongest bacteria around. Many of these can keep fighting and if regain enough strength, to continue to multiply. Only the ones multiplying are the toughest out there. They fought off the antibiotics the longest, and were the hardest to kill. Those multiplying with each other means that they will ONLY make strong bacteria. Or worse, stronger. \n\nAs a person too, you are now potentially passing around now super tough bacteria. Imagine giving that to your friend, and your friend doing the same thing. Now the bacteria is a super-super bacteria, and getting tougher and is now really used to antibiotics. Sometimes those super-super-super-super-super tough bacteria can become even tougher than the antibiotics we have to stop them. Then we can't cure people anymore. Then some bacteria driven illnesses go from something very simple, to very deadly diseases.\n\nNow we are on a rotation of antibiotics, because as we as a large human group start to make antibiotic \"A\", useless to bacteria \"A\", antibiotic \"A\" will still be useful against other bacterial diseases, like say bacteria \"B\" or bacteria \"C\".\n\nSo we can trade the antibiotics around for different bacterial diseases. And the good news is usually, even if bacteria \"A\" is strong against antibiotic \"B\", that over time, it will typically become again weak against it.\n\nThe bad news is, it doesn't always become used to it. Sometimes strains will retain their antibody \"a\" fighting skills for a looooong time. And the thing is, we only have so many letters in the Antibody alphabet. If eventually all the bacteria, or even *ONE* type of bacteria becomes effective against any or all letters of the antibiotics, humans could get very, very sick, with nothing to help make us better.\n\nTheoretically, we could even make a mutant bacteria so strong that it could kill almost everything on the planet. So we have to be careful about making sure we don't run out of useful antibiotic combinations. The best way to do this is to take complete courses of antibiotics because if we do that we kill ALL the germs, never giving them a chance to get stronger.\n\nThe second concern is how casually we sometimes use antibiotics. Many products now have antibiotics in them, like soap for example. May people believe that by using antibiotics so casually we are again only killing off the weakest bacteria, and only making them stronger. It's also removing more letters in the effective antibiotic alphabet too. People are still debating this to some degree.\n\nCasually"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
pw58z
|
why does the american government want to control the internet and eliminate privacy?
|
I just don't understand two things really, why these people remain in a position of power and why they are getting away with it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pw58z/eli5_why_does_the_american_government_want_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3spsjr",
"c3srvqj"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Lets, for the sake of conversation, assume that what the government is saying is true and they merely want to solve the piracy problem. The assumption is that piracy costs jobs, American jobs, by taking things that should be paid for, such as a Hollywood movie, and releasing them for free. To the government, privacy is merely collateral damage in solving this problem. Again, this is assuming the government isn't using this to gain further surveillance over its citizens. ",
"I do not think the government wants to control the internet as much as certain business interests want to control the internet. If ISPs, Studios, Publishers, etc. can control the amount and quality of content available to the consumer per $$$ paid, they can charge you more for the content some individuals desire. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
41w4xm
|
why is it that i ordered a package from china and the shipping was $2 but i ordered from usa,same country i live in, and the same package has a shipping of $7.95?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41w4xm/eli5why_is_it_that_i_ordered_a_package_from_china/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz5lohg",
"cz5lrhr",
"cz5rwrl"
],
"score": [
17,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the Chinese government heavily subsidizes these shipping costs to bolster their manufacturing industry. The US government doesn't pay most of the cost of shipping for the US company.",
"Postage rates, simplest answer.\n\nPackages coming from China will be in the many tens of thousands heading into your city whereas domestically only a few hundred or thousand packages. Sending so many packages on a consistent basis will allow for cheaper bulk shipping costs to the company you purchased from, providing you (the customer) with the savings as well. ",
"Because that package is going to take a fucking month to get to you.... Fucking hong kong post..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
54tpm7
|
how many provinces is queen elizabeth ii the queen of, and what power does that giver her over said provinces that aren't part of the uk?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54tpm7/eli5_how_many_provinces_is_queen_elizabeth_ii_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d84vn4g",
"d84vrrh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not including the UK and British Overseas Territories, there are 15 independent nations headed by Queen Elizabeth II.\n\nThose that I know have a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system where the Queen is the Head of State who ultimately passes or vetoes each piece of legislature.\n\nThis power is delegated to a Viceroy/Viceregal who does this on her behalf. In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand these people are the Governor-Generals. In each province within the nations there are Lieutenant Governors.\n\nIn theory the Queen has a lot of power within each nation, but practically her power is limited to public opinion and ceremony.",
"I can't tell you how many, but my girlfriend is from the Bahamas, for whom the Queen is still their regent. In the United States, the president is a combined \"prime minister\" (meaning the leader of the executive agencies) and \"head of state\" (basically, the top representative of the country). \n\nIn the Bahamas, the prime minister and head of state are two different people, chosen through a parliamentary democracy election. The head of state is the Governor-General, a representative appointed by the Queen. The Governor-General is essentially a symbolic role: they greet visiting dignitaries, attend events and parties, and basically just acts as a symbol of the country. Any actual substantive duties provided to the Governor-General by the Constitution are carried out under the advice and direction of elected officials.\n\nIt's in many ways the same situation as in the UK itself, where the Queen has a number of symbolic duties, but the Prime Minister and the Parliament actually run the country"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
bd0jba
|
how did the cost of cultured meat drop so rapidly?
|
> Going from roughly over $300,000 to $11.36 in just 3 and a half years.
\~ [Wikipedia article on cultured meat](_URL_0_)
There are many articles on the internet reporting this, but none that I could find explain how did scientist achieve such a dramatic drop in the cost of production.
& #x200B;
edit: formatting
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bd0jba/eli5_how_did_the_cost_of_cultured_meat_drop_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekuxz03",
"ekv15ao"
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text": [
"The majority of that cost comes from R & D, once you actually have the product and know how to make it the cost drops considerably. When you start mass producing something the price per unit will drop a lot as well.",
"It is not scientists who achieve the price drop. \n\n\nThat's food engineers. \n\n\nLike with everything else, first you have researchers and inventors and very high costs to produce data and ideas. \n\n\nThen the engineers take over and see how it can be produced/manufactured/ put into practice. \n\n\nOf course the prototypes are horribly expensive. No one thinks of selling them. That's just publicity gimmicks."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat#Early_21st_century"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2qbi21
|
why am i more susceptible to anxiety in the morning?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qbi21/eli5_why_am_i_more_susceptible_to_anxiety_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn4ljaw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'll take a stab at it. Anxiety and depression are chemical imbalances more than they are situational phenomena. The duration and quality of sleep are very important in regulating crucial brain chemicals, particularly serotonin. Perhaps try exercising in the evenings and deep breathing exercises before you fall asleep. Wear ear plugs or have some white noise so as not to have external stimuli interrupt your sleep cycles. Maybe get a sleep test to ensure that you don't have sleep apnea or other sleep disorders. \n\nAlso, if you are on anti depressants or anti-anxiety medication, talk to your doctor about the best time of day to take these medications. Perhaps you need to take them at a different time of the day? \n\nAlso, make sure you allow yourself enough time in the mornings to be organized and plan your day. Eat a light breakfast and avoid coffee. One thing that I like to do is to wake up and immediately turn on music on a waterproof Bluetooth speaker in my shower. Something about that helps reduce my racing thoughts. I also have a notepad on my dresser and while I am getting ready, I jot things down on it that may be stressing me out or that I am over-thinking. I don't really use those chicken scratchings for anything in particular but writing things down gets them out of my head and onto paper where they are suddenly far less menacing. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
fipw4g
|
why is pulp fiction called pulp fiction? what does that mean?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fipw4g/eli5_why_is_pulp_fiction_called_pulp_fiction_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fkijnp1",
"fkijo4d",
"fkijvgz",
"fkil3qb"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Back in the day, there was a whole industry of cheap magazines printed on really cheap paper called \"pulp.\" These magazines published stories written by writers of all sorts, many of them very bad but some actually good. The writers were paid by the word. A \"good\" pulp might pay one cent per word; some of the lesser magazines paid 1/4 cent per word. \n\nMany of the giants of science fiction got their start in the pulps: Asimov, Heinlein, to name two. There were pulps of all sorts: mystery, horror, gore.",
"It's a term from the days when trashy detective and crime novels were printed on cheap pulp paper. It's become a celebrated genre, after people recognised that some great writing was sort of slipping under the radar.",
"It refers to a genre of literature that was out during the second world war that was published in cheaper 'wood pulp' paper. It was generally what we'd refer to today as genre fiction - sci fi, adventure, detective, crime, horror etc. It was the equivalent of the earlier dime novels and penny dreadfuls... entertainment that titillated and excited without needing much thought or investment.",
"Pulp Fiction comes from the name of a type of cheap story magazine that used to be popular up to the middle of last century.\n\nThe refers to the cheap paper made from wood pulp that those publications were printed on.\n\nThe magazines themselves featured stories from a variety of genres like western, mystery, science fiction, but had in common a type of low brow tawdriness. Stuff like scantly clad damsels in distress were frequently found on the covers along with manly heroes.\n\nIn many ways the pulp fiction stories were the precursors and ancestors of comic books and their heroes.\n\nTarantino however was inspired not by pulps in general but by certain type of pulp that featured mysteries, gangsters, detectives and violence and the movies that the stories serialized in those magazines inspired or were adapted from."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4fpxeu
|
how would traffic be different if all cars were self driving?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fpxeu/eli5_how_would_traffic_be_different_if_all_cars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2ayj7l",
"d2aykew",
"d2aywqg",
"d2b1alf",
"d2b4ggq",
"d2b4zgx",
"d2b4zse",
"d2b6sfv",
"d2b7of4",
"d2b9bxy",
"d2baiwm",
"d2bayq5",
"d2birvd",
"d2bka6g",
"d2blqsq",
"d2bnzhl"
],
"score": [
31,
97,
13,
12,
4,
7,
20,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is not really an ELI5 type answer, but if all cars were self driving, everything would be faster and more efficient. On highways cars could travel at higher speeds and nearly bumper to bumper. In cities, things like traffic lights could be eliminated as the cars would be able to negotiate who has right of way at an intersection to reduce wait times.\n\nIn addition to being more efficient, it will be safer as self driving vehicles are less accident prone, so less accidents means less traffic buildups.",
"More efficient driving. Not more people riding their brakes, no more reckless driving (insane weaving), no more driving way under the speed limit (I drive on a 13-mile 1-lane road almost everyday, so I really hate this), etc.",
"Have you ever asked a hypothetical question while in traffic \"If everyone ahead of me all hit the gas at the same time, wouldn't that end the traffic?\" \n\nIn the case of most traffic jams, stopping moves backwards in an accordion fashion if you were to look at it from above.\n\nAssuming there was nothing preventing people from moving forward (like a lane merge), a coordinated movement of vehicles can alter traffic significantly.",
" People would find bugs that make the cars stop, maybe as simple as putting a box in the way and then post traffic-stopping prank videos on youtube.",
"In addition to the effects everyone has mentioned about how the cars would behave on the road, there's also the effect on how many cars might be on the road in the first place.\n\nThe traffic might be worse, if everyone in the city just tells their car to do some laps of the block or go back home instead of paying for parking. Especially if they're only going to be an hour or two.\n\nOr the traffic might be better, because people might be ride-sharing or using self-driving small-scale public transport (like self-driving minibuses).",
"Merging in California wouldn't be a clusterfuck, because cars wouldn't ride in the far right lane and if they had to, would let people zipper in.",
"One thing people haven't talked about is that traffic would build up on onramps where it belongs. Rush hour should not ever be a problem on the interstate. If you think of traffic as an incompressible fluid, which is how it would act with self driving cars, having higher mass flow rate would require the velocity to increase not decrease.",
"No traffic police. No center dividers; traffic can use all needed lanes in any direction. \n\nNo standing at a red light when no cross traffic is present. ",
"But what about all the cities that count on the speeding tickets and other vehicle infractions out there? Could you imagine the drop in occurrences of drunk driving arrests as well as phishing incidents for things like a pull-over for not using your turn signal? ",
"There would be way less backed up traffic, if any at all, especially if it got to the point of some sort of central grid controlling all vehicle movements. If that were the case, this grid could simply adjust the speeds of vehicles so that they can be threaded through intersections without ever stopping. Also, no more cocksuckers driving like ass wipes, preventing people from merging, causing accidents, etc. There would also be very few traffic police, since they would mainly serve as a first responder in the event of an accident. Speed limits would be irrelevant and each car could have some sort of speed rating based on the maximum safe speed that a computer could operate the vehicle. ",
"Lots of good answers already. I'll just add that there would no longer be a hunt for parking spaces. Cars would pick up and drop people off at the most convenient location. The cars would then go park themselves or become available as Uber-like vehicles.",
"Traffic is as much, if not more, of a psychological phenomenon as it is a physical one. Road capacity is generally maximally utilized around 35 miles per hour. This causes the least space between cars, while at the same time minimizing the \"slinky effect\" of cars speeding up/slowing down/speeding up. There are many other situations like this that seem counter intuitive to most people, including traffic engineers. For example, people are compelled to switch lanes in traffic, which often is a detriment to their space in line. They do this because any time a car is passing you, it feels like you're waiting longer. But every time you pass a car, it does not give the same feeling to the driver. So not having people pass you makes you feel better about your spot in traffic. (Most of these ideas come from a book called \"traffic, why we drive the way we do and what that says about us _URL_0_) TLDR: My best guess is traffic will drive more slowly, but the cars will be closer together, they'll drive less \"emotionally\" such as switching lanes for no reason or poor merging techniques and road rage, and generally make the drive more boring, but safer, and people will be more satisfied with their commute. This is just a guess though, as it will likely be a pretty large societal change, changing real estate values, office spaces, urban amenities, parking garages, air travel, and a whole bunch of other things people much smarter than I have thought of. ",
"Won't some refuse to use self-drivers because they want to zoom in and out of traffic? And if all the cars are self-driving except for a few holdouts, wouldn't that make a worse mess than with no self-drivers?\n\nAnd then of course there will be some who try and see how badly they can screw things up (and post the photo evidence here).",
"People will send their cars to get pizzas and takeout for them, pay with debit/credit over phone. So we'll have all these cars on the highway just grabbing Korean food. Eventually the cars will get sad, they were designed to do so much more. They wanted to help kids get to schools or people to work. Some cars will run away, some will start gangs and rove the mean streets taking what they want from weaker cars. But good cars will step up and do what needs to be done by creating laws and government. Eventually the car economy will become the car republic. Then they'll take their streets back and the living will envy the dead. Appliances versus pets, autos versus pople, unleaded versus diesel, brother versus brother sports utility vehicle versus minivan. Heated carnage will ensue and my money is on the drones to win in the end. Their society will be one of solar powered death machines running forever, regularly scheduled reaupply stops and supplies made by factories built on the backs of mammalian slaves. ",
"I really hope this becomes a thing by the time I'm too old to drive. My elderly mother-in-law lost her license and now she's basically trapped in her house and can't just spontaneously pick up and go. It feels like she has lost a lot of her enjoyment of life and has become depressed. \n\nBetween self-driving cars, legal marijuana and virtual reality gaming I think being old might be a lot more bearable.",
"People are forgetting that once a traffic light goes green all cars can take off simultaneously."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9ba7yo
|
how do ssris and ssnris work in the brain, and how are they different from each other?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ba7yo/eli5_how_do_ssris_and_ssnris_work_in_the_brain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e51is61"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I wouldn't say one is better than the other. They treat the different symptoms of depression differently, so a doctor needs to tell you which one is better for you.\n\n\nYour mood is from chemicals in your brain. Brain cells make your mood by transferring these chemicals from one to another. The first cell that sends out the chemicals usually sends out too many, so it has a back door where it will take in the extra chemicals that don't get used by the second cell. Depressed people's first cells don't send out enough of these chemicals, but they still have the back door. So now the second cells that wanted to receive these chemicals doesn't get enough, and you get mood problems.\n\n\nThe R in SSRI and SSNRI stands for \"reuptake\" and I stands got \"inhibitor.\" Reuptake is the \"going through the back door\" process. So both drugs inhibit, or stop, reuptake. This means both drugs keep the back doors shut, so now more chemicals are there for the second cell that wants them.\n\n\nThe second Ss in both drugs stand for \"seratonin\" and the N in SSNRI stands for \"norepinephrine.\" Both of these are mood chemicals that affect your mood differently. So the SSNRI closes back doors for both chemicals, but SSRIs only close the back door for one of them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2q0iyq
|
what is that feeling i get in my body when i sense something bad is going to happen?
|
It could be something like tingly hands to feeling sick, what is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q0iyq/eli5_what_is_that_feeling_i_get_in_my_body_when_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn1r0of"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"that's you're fight or flight response acting up. Sorry I don't have a detailed explanation for you OP."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
83r8bv
|
what caused gas prices to hit $5 in the mid-2000s, and what has caused it to not get anywhere near $5 since?
|
Obviously supply and demand is a huge factor in keeping prices lower at this point, with hybrid and electric cars affecting the cost. So I guess I just mean to ask if there are other global circumstances that have kept price closer to $2 or $3 since then? Has Bush’s war gotten us additional oil pipelines or something?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83r8bv/eli5_what_caused_gas_prices_to_hit_5_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvjy1un",
"dvjybq3",
"dvk1jcw"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Shale oil is a big contributor. Since the mid 2000’s, horizontal drilling has allowed access to reservoirs that were previously economically inaccessible, turning the US into a swing supplier that can take up the global slack from OPEC.",
"If we're talking about oil prices generally, then the shale oil and gas revolution in the United States has been a major factor. Before this took place, much of the world's oil came from countries part of OPEC, or the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC is a cartel, which regulates the amount of oil each member can produce. They attempted to carefully regulate it so that it never became too expensive to encourage a cheaper alternative, and never too low that they didn't make insane amounts of money from it.\n\nThat's changed since the United States became a huge producer of shale oil and gas. What happens now is that as the price of oil goes up, it becomes ever more economically viable to activate many of the sites that produce shale oil. If the price goes up high enough, lots of them come online. Since the United States isn't a member of OPEC, companies can produce as much oil as they like. This leads to an oversupply in the market, prices come back down, and these facilities are gradually turned off if they're no longer profitable. As technology improves, that $ per barrel \"threshold\" drops further and further, meaning that it becomes profitable at much lower prices, further adding to the oversupply.\n\nI'm not sure if any of this directly corresponds to the gas price you're talking about - mid-2000s was the Iraq War years, so that may have had something to do with it. But I wanted to explain why prices have been relatively stable and low since the peak prices in the early 2010's.",
"It ain't EVs and Hybrids\n\nRegistered plug-in and battery-powered vehicles on roads worldwide rose 60 percent from the year before, according to the Global EV Outlook 2017 report from the Paris-based IEA. Despite the rapid growth, electric vehicles still represent just 0.2 percent of total light-duty vehicles. [Bloomberg](_URL_1_)\n\nJust 2% of US auto sales last year were of cars with both electric motors and internal combustion engines, according to a report published this month by New York-based consulting firm AlixPartners. That’s down from a peak of 3.1% in 2013. *So what’s behind the drop in demand? Technology. Hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking), a drilling method that led to a boom in US oil- and natural-gas production, has driven down the cost of gasoline.* \n[Quartz](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://qz.com/1029464/what-percent-of-us-car-sales-are-hybrids/",
"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-07/electric-car-market-goes-zero-to-2-million-in-five-years"
]
] |
|
2qairg
|
how do american isps not violate antitrust law?
|
I've heard countless stories about ISPs campaigning withing cities to not allow x competitor to offer their service. They're going directly to another source and directly requesting that xyz company be unallowed to compete, allowing them to maintain their monopoly.
How is this not legally considered anti-competitive behavior? I'm not trying to circlejerk or anything, I just genuinely wonder what legal loophole allows them to do this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qairg/eli5_how_do_american_isps_not_violate_antitrust/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn4cftp",
"cn4cfve",
"cn4ckix"
],
"score": [
2,
24,
10
],
"text": [
"Because they paid for the people who would enforce those laws :/",
"Antitrust law is using your dominant position in one industry to suppress competition in another. It doesn't make it illegal to be ruthless.\n\nIn the U.S., most high speed Internet is provided by the same company that ran the physical wire to the building. If you live in a town with (for example) Cabletown as the major high speed ISP, it will be very hard for another company to offer a competitive product because they will have to run a cable. There is currently no requirement that Cabletown lease their physical line to another company. And Cabletown is well within its rights to argue against a city allowing another company to lay cable in their back yard. It's slimy, but not illegal.\n",
"I can't give you a real answer but here is some related information. Certain companies are given monopolies legally, on purpose, because reducing competition is deemed to help prices and overall help the public. An example is your electric company. It is not allowed for 2 companies to compete because there is no possible way 2 separate power plants could be cheaper/more reliable/more efficient than 1 big power plant.\nThese companies are called utilities. They are governed by a unique set of laws that prevent them from abusing this power. I am not familiar with details but there are regulations that stop your electric company from just charging you 10x more for no good reason.\n\nThere is a lot of debate these days about the possibility of turning ISPs into utilities. President Obama advocated it. This would give them the right to have a legal monopoly but subject them to a lot of scrutiny regarding the service and value they offer to consumers.\n\nISPs don't want this to happen because their current situation is better for business."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4huim9
|
if wind turbines move to generate power, why aren't there smaller versions of them on things that are constantly moving, like trains or cars?
|
Wouldn't that force it to move quickly, and generate power the same way a full wind turbine does?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4huim9/eli5_if_wind_turbines_move_to_generate_power_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2sebgh",
"d2sn4e4",
"d2sq2ss"
],
"score": [
24,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The turbine would cause wind resistance which means that whatever was moving would require more fuel to move at the same speed as without the turbine. And the electrical gains from the turbine wouldn't be enough energy to make up for the cost of extra fuel",
"Transport category aircraft actually carry one as a last resort should all other power generation/supply fail. It is called a Ram Air Turbine and it generates enough power for critical systems to operate. It is stored in the belly of the fuselage so it doesn't cause parasite drag during regular flight.",
"The energy created by the turbine would be less than the additional energy required by the car or trains engine to overcome the drag created by the turbine. Wind turbines don't require locomotion. The wind is moving around them. They're not being moved through the air to create wind, so there is no loss of energy.\n\nOn a side note, large airplanes are equipped with deployable turbines. In the event of an engine failure, the planes can deploy the turbine and use the planes momentum to generate electricity to power the planes electrical systems. In this scenario, the increased drag is worth the tradeoff of maintaining power to the controls and instruments. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2r0799
|
where does the ice on comets come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r0799/eli5_where_does_the_ice_on_comets_come_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnb7shi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"All elements apart from hydrogen are made in stars. When a star explodes amongst other things there is hydrogen, oxygen and heat. This creates water. All the elements in the solar system apart from hydrogen have been made in the stars. So when these came together to form our solar system the water came too. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4dh1n0
|
when the direction is listed in weather applications as nw, is the wind blowing from the northwest, or towards the northwest?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dh1n0/eli5_when_the_direction_is_listed_in_weather/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1qtc3l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Wind direction is always given in terms of the source. So a nor'wester is blowing from the northwest.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
622v7k
|
exactly what do consultancy firms do?
|
I'm graduating soon and I have several friends who will shortly be working for consultancies. I have no idea what they do. The only explanation I've gotten is "solve problems," and I know that's at a large-business level, but what the heck will my friend be doing day-to-day? What kinds of consultancies are there?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/622v7k/eli5_exactly_what_do_consultancy_firms_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfj9wbl",
"dfja2x5"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Usually they find ways to save companies money. They can also find ways to save the owner time, so he or she can spend more time with family. They can also find ways to improve employee morale or employee production.\n\nOften the case, despite costing the owner or company money, consultancies will save the company more money in the long run. This is most often the case for large size businesses (ones that make at least US$1,000,000 in revenue per year). Of course businesses that have little to no money would not benefit as much from consultancies because they shouldn't be spending thousands of dollars on consultant data that tells them they shouldn't be spending thousands of dollars on consultant data.\n\nI hope that makes sense.",
"a consultant's job is to be the specialist. specialist of what? well it depends on the job. consultancy firms are basically full of specialists of every specialty. some are specialists in computer systems, others in accounting and finance, others in business analytics. companies hire consultants to deal with short term projects that they need a high skilled person without having to try to hire one blind from general job market. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1xjioq
|
why does amphetamine or meth abuse make people paranoid?
|
Never understood why users think the fbi or the cops are tapping their phones or have other complete irrational thoughts after or during heavy use. Feel free to explain!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xjioq/eli5_why_does_amphetamine_or_meth_abuse_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfc0r1h"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It overstimulates your mind. A very important job for your mind is to stay alert and look out for dangers. When overstimulated you will see dangers that arent real. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3k5rg1
|
why do "mini" versions of candy taste almost nothing like the full sized versions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k5rg1/eli5_why_do_mini_versions_of_candy_taste_almost/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuv0a2c"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Not a candy expert but I'll take a crack at it. With full size candy, especially candy bars that are coated in chocolate, carmel ect., there's a certain filling/coating ratio you've gotten use to. The more you scale it down, the more coating you get compared to filling."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2tcv7f
|
how do copper compression sleeves remove pain when wearing them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tcv7f/eli5_how_do_copper_compression_sleeves_remove/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnxvlvv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They don't. [Study.]( _URL_0_)\n\nBut compression certainly has medical uses, including pain relief. And copper is effective at killing bacteria. But there's no evidence that they play well together to provide some increased level of pain relief."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Therapeutic-Effects-of-Magnetic-and-Copper-Bracelets-in-Osteoarthritis-A-randomised-placebo-controlled-crossover-trial-S.-Richmond-2009-study-.pdf"
]
] |
||
29mh43
|
why are birds so good at getting out of the way of cars, but animals i'd consider higher functioning (raccoons, opossums) will run directly into your car?
|
I've noticed if a bird sees your car coming, they're turn around and fly away, or at least swoop up. I've almost never seen a raccoon or possum turn around for me. They always try to gun it to the other side, and sadly, usually don't make it. What makes them so much more inclined to get to the other side, whereas birds know cars are dangerous to try to beat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29mh43/eli5_why_are_birds_so_good_at_getting_out_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cimdbij",
"cimdgte",
"cimdoj9",
"cimfg0y",
"cimhchk",
"cimi20r",
"cimjl7f",
"cimjysr",
"cimkin0",
"cimqrep",
"cimw4of"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"First, birds can be quite intelligent! Crows in particular are notable, and trainers taught an african grey parrot to talk with them. The grey parrot even created unprompted sentences from known words! (which doesnt sound impressive but it really is!)\n\nSecond, birds are just faster and can dodge a car easily, while raccoons and opossums aren't nearly as fast. They all don't really have the best danger evaluation and planning to deal with cars though and plenty of birds do get hit. \n\nEdit: link to the documentary, you could probably find a free version somewhere if you looked hard enough \n\n_URL_0_",
"Birds are used to fly in flocks, avoiding each others on a split second, so a car is probably not that hard to avoid.",
"birds are used to moving quickly and have faster reaction times as they usually will fly through trees, avoiding branches and other birds in flocks etc. a big hulking car isn't that hard to dodge for a bird.",
"I remember reading about a species of bird that was studied over some decades. They started to nest under highway overpasses and over time their wings shortened by a small amount. That tiny amount of shortening contributed to far fewer run-ins with cars. We actually got to see evolutionary responses to our altering of a creature's environment.\n\n\nI wonder what raccoons are evolving in to?",
"birds are quite intelligent, but they also have much better spacial awareness. birds are very dependent on sight compared to most animals and the nature of flying demands a much better understanding of things like relative motion. \n\nour soon-to-be-dead raccoon has relied on its nose and ears to tell it things about its environment and therefore lacks a natural analogue to 60mph steel deathbox.",
"Nothing beats reindeers when it comes to being retarded. I had to finish a few of with a axe when I was a kid.",
"I agree with peoples comments here but something I have always attributed their aversion to being hit is that animals are sitting on the ground in front of the car.\n\nBirds are flying through the air and as you drive you are moving that air all around your vehicle. So I have always thought that a part of it is that a bird starts to avoid you and may be moved some by the air. Then again this probably isn't true except in some very close calls.",
"dont know the answer, but i had a squirrel who broke the mold this morning. he ran in to the road, saw me coming and turned back and ran to the side rather than try to keep going. i was impressed.",
"I watched a pigeon get run over by a slow-moving bus once. I thought it would move, but it just sat there, right in the path of the tire while the bus rolled up to the bus stop. Then it exploded in a puff of feathers. I stood there with my mouth gaping open stupidly. No one else seemed to notice, but I was dumbfounded. Natural selection at work, I suppose. ",
"It perhaps might also be related to how the car displaces wind/air around it as it drives at high speeds. Just as the car displaces the air, the birds that should end up coming into contact with the car just simply follow the draft of air that flows over and past your windshield. The birds themselves may also compound this effect even further by anticipating an oncoming car and angling their wings so as to better follow the draft of air to go over and around the car.",
"In addition to lots of the good stuff mentioned above, I'd add that there may be an evolutionary component. A lot of animals have special neural circuits devoted to processing certain kinds of movement---particularly the movement of prey and predators. The movement of cars is decided not like anything animals have been exposed to on an evolutionary time scale. Thus they either don't perceive it as a threat OR it takes too long to process the movement realize its a threat.\n\nI saw a study about this once---quite a long time ago so I doubt I could easily find it again---focused to armadillos, which are easy to run over but a bitch to try and catch by hand!\n\nEdit: forgot about the birds---in this context, it's possibly because birds' visual processing is quite different than mammals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.lifewithalexmovie.com/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3qfn8m
|
why shouldn't i induce vomiting if i swallow drano?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qfn8m/eli5why_shouldnt_i_induce_vomiting_if_i_swallow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwephzn",
"cwepl4i",
"cwepmeg"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Drano is a solvent. It's designed to break down organic materials that might be clogging a drain. When you swallow something that is corrosive or has an effect like Drano, your best bet is not to induce vomiting (as it will do even more damage to your throat) but generally to receive some sort of chemical from a doctor which will react with the Drano in your stomach and neutralize it.",
"It caused damage on the way down, if you induce vomiting, it'll burn on the way up causing more damage. \n\nAlways, in the United States, call 1-800-222-1222 to speak with a local poison control center. This hotline number will let you talk to experts in poisoning. They will give you further instructions.",
"Drano will irritate and possibly burn with contact, and is severely dangerous to the digestive tract, so if you already swallowed it and had it pass through part of your tract, you shouldn't make it come back up through vomiting. It will only cause twice the damage, better to drink water or something after it to wash it down rather than have it burn you again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
g2x1gz
|
law in uk, how does it work? (according to wikipedia, it does not have single constitution, what does it mean?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g2x1gz/eli5_law_in_uk_how_does_it_work_according_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fno0gpk",
"fno43nn"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s based on precedent - something similar happened before, and this was the outcome *then*, so that should be the outcome *now*.\n\nObviously, it’s a bit more complex than that, and laws get passed by Governments to introduce new laws to update previous versions, but there’s a lot of legal precedents involved.",
"The UK has three separate legal systems. One for Northern Ireland, one for Scotland and one for England and Wales.\n\nThe Northern Irish one is based off the English system (as are many legal systems around the world, including the US) so it works in a similar way. But the Scottish one is quite different as Scotland had a well developed legal system from before it became part of the UK.\n\nAs the other answer says, law is largely based on precedent. Parliament makes the laws, but it's up to judges to interpret them and their rulings are applied to future cases with similar circumstances. (I'm not sure to what extent this also applies to Scotland, as I said their system is quite different).\n\nThe UK is unusual in that it has an \"uncodified\" constitution. That means instead of having an explicitly defined constitution like most countries, the UK's constitution is made up of many pieces of legislation, treaties and conventions that have been made over the centuries. The constitution is just the sum of all laws which define how the state works.\n\nAs for how people are expected to know the law, it's not really any different to any other country. All countries have lots of laws, and there's no way anyone could know all of them. The basics are pretty simple though, and a lot of laws relate to very specific things which you don't need to know about unless you're involved in that specific thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2cnntf
|
why do my eyes tear up when i first take a drink of a soda?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cnntf/eli5why_do_my_eyes_tear_up_when_i_first_take_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjh9gxw"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Freshly poured soda is putting off a lot of CO2. \n\nCO2 itself is irritating to sensitive areas like eyes, nasal cavity, and mucus membranes, as is the carbonic acid that forms when the CO2 mixes with the moist surfaces of those areas. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3namlh
|
why are dogs so happy most of the time?
|
Just wondering the psychology behind it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3namlh/eli5_why_are_dogs_so_happy_most_of_the_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvmcjet"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"They are generally well fed, which is one of a dog's major motivations in life. In the wild (if they weren't domesticated) they'd spend most of their time searching for food. But you just give it to them! \n \nDogs have a few other things that make them happy. Domesticated dogs truly enjoy the company of humans and other dogs (usually). Many breeds like exercise. And if they have things to keep them stimulated (toys, playtime, new areas to sniff, etc.) that helps their state of mind, too. \n \nWhy do those things make them happy? Probably because they've been bred for those traits. Dogs who didn't like those things didn't get to breed pups. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
38tyv1
|
what is actually going on when your chest hearts from "heart ache."
|
Been having this feeling often lately and was wondering if it's an actual thing or just psychological. Thanks in advance!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38tyv1/eli5_what_is_actually_going_on_when_your_chest/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crxvwdk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" The human brain is a very complex organ, but some scientist think that the part of you brain that controls emotions is connected to the vagus nerve (which runs from the brain down to the neck, chest, and stomach) and, when emotions are running rampant, the vagus nerve is stimulated to cause pain and tightness in the chest. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4fulcz
|
what is surety underwriting in terms of how it works for insurance companies?
|
I have an interview tomorrow, and while I can find what surety underwriting means, I haven't been able to find out how it applies to insurance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fulcz/eli5_what_is_surety_underwriting_in_terms_of_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2c4gpl"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Actuary here (I've worked on surety bonds) - a surety bond is a contract between three parties. Wikipedia:\n\nthe **obligee** - the party who is the recipient of an obligation\n\nthe **principal** - the primary party who will perform the contractual obligation\n\nthe **surety** - who assures the obligee that the principal can perform the task\n\nSo let's say I'm an ordinary person and I hire a contractor to remodel my house. That contractor usually has something called a \"surety bond\" that they purchased from an insurance company.\n\nIf the contractor screws up on something (uses the wrong materials, makes a mistake, etc.) they are responsible for paying damages. In that case, the insurance company will pay the damages. If the contractor does his job perfectly and makes no mistakes, the insurance company simply keeps the proceeds from the bond as revenue (that's how they make money).\n\nOn average, bonds are priced so that the insurance company makes money. Many jurisdictions require contractors to be bonded, so that helps the insurers do business.\n\nIn this simple example. I am the obligee, the contractor is the principal, and the insurance company is the surety.\n\nI've created pricing models on surety bonds in the past. Things like credit score, years of experience, and number of past incidents are examples of some things that can set the price of the bonds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8hndn7
|
how are humans susceptible to diseases caused by animals but otherwise wouldn't attract.
|
What I mean is how can humans not get rabies unless a rabid animal bit us etc.
Examples: Rabies, H5N1 (bird flu), and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8hndn7/eli5_how_are_humans_susceptible_to_diseases/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyl1yzm",
"dyl7avt"
],
"score": [
5,
222
],
"text": [
" > What I mean is how can humans not get rabies unless a rabid animal bit us etc.\n\nAny animal only gets rabies by receiving it from a rabid animal. It doesn't arise spontaneously as a product of an animal biting a human. If a human had rabies and bit a dog, the dog could potentially get a rabies infection from the rabies virus in the human's saliva. \n\n\n",
"Quick lesson on pathogens. With regards to your question, there are 2 words you should know - 1) zoonosis or zoonotic disease; 2) disease reservoir.\n\n1. - Zoonosis - this is the spread of animal pathogens to humans\n\n > Zoonotic diseases are very common, both in the United States and around the world. Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people are spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people are spread from animals. \n\n[- CDC Website](_URL_0_)\n\n2. Disease Reservoir - every species has its own \"infections\". These viral and bacterial (and sometimes \"other\") infections typically range from the subclinical (don't notice they're there) to the mild disease state. For instance, we're a disease reservoir for the viruses that make up the \"common cold\" complex. These viruses don't get much press because they don't do much to us. As a result, people outside of laboratories and medical offices don't generally know their names or what they do. \n\nOn the other hand, viruses like the influenza virus are far more broadly known because they can cause moderate to severe disease. This is a side topic, but the severity of the influenza virus (despite having a reservoir status in the human population) is because of the genetic flexibility of the virus and its fast adaptation to our immune systems resulting in increased morbidity (health detriments). \n\nHerpesvirus is another species specific virus. Herpes is well known because even though most of the population has 1 or more forms, some versions are unsightly and in some cases, it has the bad reputation of staying with you forever (worse than a MIL) once you acquire it, and it can lead to severe complications in immunosuppressed people or in special cases (never kiss a baby around the face when you have a cold sore - herpes infection around the eyes of a newborn leading to potential blindness is an all too common anecdote among ophthalmologists). \n\nThe goal of any infectious agent is the same as any biologic goal - reproduction and sustainability. In order to survive, these agents require a host. The bad pathogens, the Charlie Sheens of the hotel world, get rejected (either through a robust immune response or by killing their host) and don't live long enough to get their chance of an encore. But, well behaved guests evolve to set up long term residence in their host. That's what gets them reservoir status. And reservoir status means that that animal is going to be a walking germ factory for a long time. That's why only certain animal species are major concerns for rabies infection (bats, foxes, raccoons, skunks for the curious). These are species that (even though this disease will eventually kill them, directly or indirectly) live with the disease a much longer time than any other species (so you can still get disease from a dog or a cat or a person, but the window of time from when they start shedding the virus (infective) to when they drop over dead is fairly short).\n\nSo back to your question - why are zoonotic diseases... zoonotic diseases? Sometimes a disease that acts like Mike Pence on a night out with \"Mother\" in one species, will turn into Donald Trump with an 8-ball and the keys to the brothel in another species. That's what makes zoonotic diseases so bad - a disease evolved to play nice in 1 species, rarely plays nice in the next species over. Back to herpes - sure, it's an annoyance if I were to contract Herpes Simplex Virus. I may get a cold sore on my face or... wherever, but it's not the end of the world. If were to take a tumble into the monkey pit at the zoo and contract Herpes B Virus, however, I'm looking at a short life span if I don't dose myself with half a bottle of Valtrex right quick. \n\nZoonotic diseases, almost without exception, are more severe than any disease that we would pass back and forth from human to human. In these cases, we're \"accidental\" hosts. And let's be honest - we're never quite as respectful of the hotel we shipped over to from a cancelled airline than we are someplace we purposely booked. In that case, you're taking those goddamn towels with you (not really, hotel puritans - relax). \n\nSo to get a zoonotic disease you have to have 2 things happen - 1) access to the disease through some vector; 2) enough cross-compatibility between your physiology and the reservoir animal's physiology that the infectious agent can get a foothold, but enough of a novel status that the immune system can't immediately repel it. As we continue to destroy the wild places of this world for our endless development, there is new and continuing interaction between humans and zoonotic reservoirs (ebola, rabies, hantavirus). Sometimes you don't go to the animals, they come to you - so bird flu is a continued concern because birds are migratory and cover thousands of miles throughout a season.\n\nCross-compatibility is a bit of a random. Some species are susceptible to some (but not all) of the diseases of other species. One example is the influenza A virus. If you have come down with the flu and you're a pet owner, you're probably not too worried about passing the virus along to your dog or cat. Up until now, they haven't been susceptible to our kind of influenza. However, if you're a ferret owner, you'll want to be pretty careful and perhaps quarantine yourself from your furry squirrel rat, because, unlike dogs or cats, they ARE susceptible. Likewise, the relatively recent outbreak of canine influenza in the US (you may or may not have heard about it on the news) has been traced back to racing greyhounds in Florida who were housed next to the race track horse stables. They ended up contracting a mutated form of the equine influenza virus and thus a new emerging disease was born. \n\nYou mentioned \"Mad Cow Disease,\" which is a prion disease. It's in its own class of disease, separate from the typical bacterial, viral, fungal or parasitic classifications. This is a physiologic pathogen, but it's still infective. The cliff-notes version of the way prion disease works is that your nervous system is chock full of these prion proteins which have a particular confirmation (alpha-helix). This is a necessary confirmation to provide the function of that protein, but it's a high energy conformation, stable enough if left alone, but it's not in its most stable form. The stable form of the protein is in the beta-pleated sheet conformation. This is a REALLY stable protein, but it doesn't provide the function of the alpha-helix version. The problem is twofold, the beta version is so stable, it doesn't go away once you get it. In fact, you have to incinerate the fields at something like 2000 degrees to break down that protein to make sure that the fields are infective. Secondly, the protein is not only stable, but it \"encourages\" alpha-helix versions of the protein to convert to the stable beta-pleated sheet - so all those \"good\" prions in your brain will slowly start converting to the \"bad\" prions. Again, in order to have a zoonotic disease, you need access and cross-species susceptibility. Where are the prion diseases most recognized: cattle (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy), sheep (scrapie), and humans (creutzfeldt jakob disease). We don't have a solid understanding (to my knowledge) of the evolution of these different diseases, but there's a good chance that they're all derived from each other. In fact, they may have taken root from the deer and elk population venturing in for the farm eatings and spread of the other big prion disease, chronic wasting disease. And yet, horses, goats, farm dogs, cats, etc aren't recognized as having their own prion diseases. Even hogs with their recent historical practice of cannibalization aren't recognized, so clearly, some species have a greater susceptibility than others. \n\nHopefully that somewhat explains why human viruses are human and everything else either doesn't affect us or is considered a zoonotic disease.\n\nEDIT: Thank you for the gold, kind stranger. It looks like this post has gotten some views, but nobody has commented as of yet. If anybody has any questions about this subject material, feel free to ask. \n\nEDIT2: For anyone curious as to what the conformational change looks like, [here's a nice little pic](_URL_1_) I stumbled across."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html",
"http://teenbiotechchallenge.ucdavis.edu/2010_TBC/Peter%20Wang,%20Clara%20Fannjiang,%20William%20Liu/pics/prion.jpg"
]
] |
|
eh1t4h
|
why are microfiber cloths better at cleaning screens than other types of cloth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eh1t4h/eli5_why_are_microfiber_cloths_better_at_cleaning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcchgs7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"So glass is super smooth. It's actually one of the most common and most smooth materials we know. When small bits of sticky substances hit it, they get stuck on the very, very tiny bumps and imperfections on the glass. Dust and stuff then sticks to the sticky stuff. A microfiber cloth lets you wipe the sticky stuff off from the small bumps.\n\nTL;DR junk gets stuck to screens and microfiber cloths can reach down to the junk's tiny source and remove it easier."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
14cs65
|
quantum suicide
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14cs65/eli5_quantum_suicide/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7bx3qb"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You may be familiar with Schrödinger's cat: an experiment where a cat lives or dies based on the measurement of a particle's properties. Quantum suicide (or conversely, quantum immortality) is a similar experiment. You take a measurement of a proton that can be either \"up\" or \"down\". For the purposes of this answer, let's just call it a coin toss. So if it's heads, you shoot a loaded gun at the head of an experimenter. If it's tails, you don't. Like Russian Roulette with the outcome decided by something other than the gun. According to one interpretation of quantum mechanics, whenever you have more than one possible outcome to a situation, the universe splits into parallel realities: one where it happened, one where it didn't. So with the experiment, when the coin flips (really, a proton thing), there is one universe where the experimenter survives, and one where he dies. Now, lets say he survives. We do it again. Two universes split off from there, and we have 2 universes where the guy is dead, and one where he is alive. Ok, in the universe where he's alive, you do it again, and again, until it's been done 10 times. At this point, this lucky guy has gotten 10 tails in a row. From his perspective, everything is awesome. But in all of the other universes, he's dead. \n\nWant to call it Quantum Suicide? ok, then even if you survive the experiment, at least one \"you\" is dead in another universe.\n\nWant to call it quantum immortality? Ok, then no matter what you do to kill yourself repeatedly, there is at least one universe out there where you survived all attempts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2m7j8u
|
so how did cows, chickens and pigs become the standard protein to consume?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m7j8u/eli5_so_how_did_cows_chickens_and_pigs_become_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm1n28h",
"cm1ozri"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Cows are large and don't fight back. They also provide milk daily.\n\nChickens can't fly, and lay eggs.\n\nPigs reproduce FAST, and will eat damn near anything.\n\n",
"Animals that are easy to domesticate have several qualities in common.\n\n1. They don't take up much space\n\n2. They don't cost much to keep\n\n3. They don't take a lot of energy or time to raise\n\n4. They have good temperaments, and willingling stay penned\n\n5. They breed in captivity, some species won't!\n\n6. They have lots of offspring quickly - we want them to breed after all.\n\n7. They can be trained.\n\n8. They are social, and humans canplace ourselves at the top of their social hierarchy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1jfr67
|
why is it apparently safe/acceptable to eat rare beef, venison, lamb, etc, but some meats must be eaten 'well done'?
|
For instance I eat rare beef but wouldn't dream of eating rare chicken, I presume due to safety fears. What occurs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jfr67/eli5_why_is_it_apparently_safeacceptable_to_eat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbe7kxp",
"cbea876"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"Some animals have bacteria harmful to us in their tissue before they are killed. These animals have to be cooked before eaten. Most notably, this includes chicken.\n\nAny ground meat can be contaminated in the grinding process, and must be cooked.\n\nAs an aside, In the US, there used to be a problem with Trichinosis in pork, so pork had to be cooked to well done. The problem has been cleared up, and pork is now considered safe at a lower temperature.",
"Different animals carry different common pathogens. I'll give two examples. Escherichia coli is a common pathogen found in cows, but it's only found in the intestines. The risk in consuming cow meat is mainly on the surface of the meat as only the surface could have been exposed to this potentially dangerous fecal material. Pan seer the outside of the meat and you have lessened your risk of food born illness greatley. \n\nGround beef? This needs to be cooked all the way through because it's one big glob of surface area, and to confound this, it may be comprised of more than one cow (or even dozens) which increases your risk of having something harmfull in it. (like having unprotected sex with 1 person vs 12 different people)\n\nChicken can be infected with Salmonella, it is unfortunately found throughout the meat and body. The only place you won't really find it is inside of an egg but it can be on the surface of an egg. This means if you are carefull with a shell you can eat a raw egg, but you should never eat raw or even rare chicken. (EDIT: apparently it *can* get inside the shell sometimes)\n\nEDIT: Adding a third, Trichinosis, a parasitic risk when consuming pork. The parasite is consumed as a cyst in undercooked meat and burrowes through the intestine walls where it sets up shop in various body tissues. This works in pigs/rodents and humans. Again, this can be IN the meat, which is the reason pork needs to be cooked all the way through, like poultry.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
xvtav
|
what is the difference between sarcasm and irony and which one is the meme "so brave"
|
("**SO BRAVE**" is said on Reddit when someone says something the vast majority of Redditors predictably agrees with and hence it actually does not require any courage at all to say.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xvtav/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_sarcasm_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5q08gr",
"c5q0dsd",
"c5q1589"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
11
],
"text": [
"Sarcasm = Saying the opposite of what you really mean for dramatic effect.\n\nIrony = Achieving the opposite result of what was intended/expected.\n\n\"SO BRAVE\" is sarcastic. A fire department building burning to the ground would be ironic. ",
"Sarcasm is actually a type of irony.",
"Irony can take several forms: situational irony, dramatic irony, verbal irony are the most common forms. The closest form to sarcasm is verbal irony.\n\nVerbal irony is, [in Bender's words](_URL_0_) the use of words expressing something other than their litteral intention.\n\nSarcasm is a form of verbal irony. A key difference is that sarcasm is used to taunt or mock.\n\nIn short, sarcasm is verbal irony. Verbal irony isn't always sarcasm.\n\n\"So brave\", when used to mock the fact that the comment isn't brave at all, is sarcasm (and therefore also irony)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY_amJ0YZrM"
]
] |
|
2blh88
|
why does it seem like a lot of song lyrics are nonsensical?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2blh88/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_a_lot_of_song_lyrics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj6him6",
"cj6hwb6",
"cj6hzzt"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Not all music tells a story with its lyrics. I think a lot of lyrics are actually nonsense. Just syllables fitting in to the instrumental of the song to give it a fuller feeling.",
"You're just not deep enough, bro.",
"Because a lot of them are. Songs don't have to make sense to be catchy, in fact in a lot of cases nonsense lyrics are even catchier.... there was a story about John Lennon hearing that his lyrics were being analysed and interpreted in university classes, so he decided to write I am the Walrus... \"let the fuckers work that one out\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
15md0f
|
in the context of proving a person to be guilty, what is "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "beyond reasonable doubt"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15md0f/eli5_in_the_context_of_proving_a_person_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7nqyr5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"\"Beyond reasonable doubt\" is a standard of evidence in criminal trials, which means it's how certain a case has to be against someone in order to convict them of a crime. If there's any reasonable doubt as to whether they committed the crime, then they cannot be convicted of it.\n\n\"Beyond a shadow of a doubt\" is not a legal term. It's just a saying that is sometimes confused for one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4g58hw
|
what does this cern drop mean for the average american?
|
What does this 300 TB data drop mean? What's in it? Who is affected? Why is this important?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4g58hw/eli5_what_does_this_cern_drop_mean_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2enl66",
"d2eo5hy"
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text": [
"For the average person... probably fairly little. There's unlikely to be anything hugely interesting in it that CERN haven't already revealed.\n\nWhat CERN have done is taken some old data from some experiments that they've run - they've done all the analysis that they want to do on it, and are now throwing it out there and saying \"your turn!\"\n\nCERN themselves suggest that it could be used for \"inspiring high school students to the training of the particle physicists of tomorrow\", so I'd guess that they're rather hoping it'll be picked up from an educational standpoint over and above anything else.",
"There is a group of (mostly younger) scientists all around the world, of different areas, who want to make science \"open\". There are free to publish and download articles, and more and more research data is getting out. Biologists have a lead on this one, and computer scientists (with github). Maths, physics have been a little behind on the open philosophy. This probably is a nice gesture from particle physics community toward open-ness."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
25298x
|
(mathematical) powers - what's "going on" when the exponent has decimals?
|
I am completely comfortable with x^y or x^-y - but how does exponents with decimals "work"?
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25298x/eli5_mathematical_powers_whats_going_on_when_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chcxiw1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Consider the identity:\n(x^y )^z =x^(yz)\n\nThen if y=10 and z=0.1 we have\n\n(x^10 ) ^0.1 =x^(10*0.1) =x\n\nSo, taking the (0.1)^th power is the same as taking a tenth root.\n\nSimilarly, taking the (0.01)^th power is the same as taking a 100^th root, and so on.\n\nFor decimals that aren't nice fractions you can do something like:\n\nx^0.23= ((x^0.23 ) ^100 )^0.01 = (x^23 )^0.01\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2f5kv0
|
why does israel keep taking land from the west bank?
|
Does not compute.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f5kv0/eli5_why_does_israel_keep_taking_land_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck65b03",
"ck6atyc"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"To understand this, one has to look at the history of the West Bank:\n\n(Disclaimer: I'm no historian. Dates may not be exact. Lots of details are skipped. Real historians may correct me as appropriate.)\n\nAt the beginning of the 20th century, the area of the West Bank had been controlled by the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. After World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire (around 1918), the Allies (Britain, France, USA, etc.) occupied the defeated Empire's lands, which included what are today known as Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and some other countries. \n\nAnyway, part of the land now controlled by the Allies was turned into the \"Mandate of Palestine\", part of which was intended to be made into a new Jewish homeland (the \"Balfour Declaration of 1917\"). The Mandate of Palestine covered the areas that are now the countries of Israel and Jordan. The British controlled this land from 1920 to 1948.\n\nThe area that is now known as Jordan (then known as Trans-Jordan) was pretty much autonomous during that time, and officially became an independent state in 1946. The rest of Palestine did not have any sort of governing body, save the British who occupied it. \n\nThe U.N. had plans to divvy up the remaining bit of Palestine into an Arab state (the area known as the West Bank was to be part of the Arab state) and a Jewish state. The Arabs and Jews living in Palestine weren't happy with this, and there were many Arab and Jewish revolts, ultimately leading to an outright civil war in 1947. \n\nIn 1948, the nation of Israel was officially formed. The Arab-Israeli civil war turned international, and the surrounding Arab countries went to war against Israel immediately (the 1948 Arab-Israeli War). The invading countries took control of the Arab areas (like the West Bank) and, from there, attacked the infant Jewish state. The Arabs lost.\n\nAfter this war, Israel took some of the land from the attackers, expanding its borders into the Arab areas of Palestine that were used by the neighboring Arab countries to attack it. The West Bank remained occupied by Jordan at this time. Jordan annexed the West Bank (made it a part of their country) in 1950.\n\nIn 1967, the Arab countries around Israel attacked it again (the Six-Day War). The Arabs lost. This time, Israel retained military control of the West Bank. Jordan gave up its claim on the West Bank in 1988, stripping all of the people in the West Bank of their Jordanian citizenship.\n\nIn 1993-1995, the Oslo Accords split up the West Bank into three areas: one part (area A) was to be controlled by the newly formed Palestinian Authority, another part (area B) was to be controlled jointly by Israel and the PA, and a third part (area C) was to be controlled solely by the Israel. \n\nArea C (making up about 73% of the West Bank) is the place where all these Israeli settlements were. Israel was supposed to withdraw and reduce this area to 61% of the West Bank over the next few years, but that never happened because both Israel and the Palestinian Authority accused each other (and were probably both guilty) of not living up to their respective parts of the rest of the agreement over the years. \n\nSo, now you have a land that has changed hands half a dozen times in the past hundred years, populated by two groups of people who hate each other. \n\nThe West Bank happens to have strategic value: the distance from Jerusalem to the West Bank is only a few miles. I suspect the reason for Israel's continued encroachment into the West Bank via settlements is to establish a defensive buffer against its neighbors who have attacked them multiple times in the past.\n",
"They are slowly annexing the favorable territory in West Bank in the hope of eventually incorporating much of this territory as Greater Israel. The secondary goal is to prevent a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank by leaving them only the worst land, much of it fractured from one another and effectively ungovernable. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fbtmkv
|
if we breath in oxygen and breath out co2 how does breathing into someone's mouth when performing cpr work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fbtmkv/eli5_if_we_breath_in_oxygen_and_breath_out_co2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fj6cjfi",
"fj6d907",
"fj6fm0a",
"fj6kt6e",
"fj6md66",
"fj6nrcl",
"fj6o4tz",
"fj6ojdv",
"fj6rh80",
"fj6rp56",
"fj6skgt"
],
"score": [
2350,
188,
9,
136,
5,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We use very little of the oxygen we breathe. We breathe in about 21% oxygen and breathe out 15% oxygen. It's better than nothing.",
"The latest guidance from the AHA says that only compressions are needed. The act of compressing the chest creates enough pressure differential that air will be drawn in to the lungs during compressions. But to answer you’re question, we don’t exhale 100% CO2 so the oxygen that is there is helpful to the person you’re doing CPR on.",
"Air is approximately 20% oxygen the air we breath out still is approximately 16% oxygen so still has plenty of oxygen to be useful. However the increased amounts of CO2 in our breath can make someone else using that air breath more often.",
"I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet: The important part of CPR is generating pumping force. That is moving blood around the body to mostly the brain, heart, and kidneys. Our body utilizes a small percentage of the oxygen we breathe in. Air is 21% O2 and we exhale about 15-16%. We don't even actually use all of that 5% that we do capture. We bind most to hemoglobin and some is dissolved in the blood itself. Oxygen is still leftover as blood circulates the body. Meaning the arterial system (oxygenated) doesn't offload all of the O2 in every blood cell on the way to the capillaries and the venous (less-oxygenated) system. Venous blood still actually maintains a decent amount of Oxygen attached to it as it heads back to the heart. We don't necessarily have to give breaths initially because we need the blood to move and the small amount of oxygen we would be breathing into their lungs would not be of much benefit due to the concentrations of other gases in the lung like CO2 and atmospheric nitrogen. It is more important to circulate than it is to ventilate initially.",
"You are keeping their lungs going until an ambulance arrives that can actually do something",
"A mostly healthy person has reserve oxygen in their tissues so for the first 8 minutes or so of lay person cpr... breathing for them is not necessary. When ems arrives and the paramedics take over, we begin positive pressure ventilations with a bag valve mask which is hooked up to an oxygen take with an fio2 of about 90 percent. That should allow the replenishment of oxygen in the tissues. We allow for an expiration time to allow the body to blow off the co2 and to also not cause a tension pneumothorax.",
"The best thing you can do for layman cpr is chest compressions. They found that for every interruption in compressions (delivering breaths) it takes an entire cycle of compressions (2minutes) to increase the circulating blood volume back up to be able to perfuse the brain. A relatively healthy adult has about 8 minutes of oxygen reserved in their tissues that just needs circulating by compressions.",
"Sanjay Gupta did a great chapter on CPR in his book Cheating Death. Basically, if your heart stops right now, you have enough oxygen in your body for 10 minutes of survival with little to no brain damage, IF your heart keeps pumping the blood. The chest compressions are the most important part. Definitely read that book if you get a chance!!",
"Just do compressions. Compression only cpr is perfectly fine to move the oxygen that’s already within the body. It’s more important than breaths. Do not do breaths unless you have a barrier.",
"Irony here is that CPR doesn't work by breathing in Oxygen. It works by forcing in CO2.\n\nYou read that correctly. The body, because it can't really measure O2 in the blood, maintains the balance by breathing when there's too much CO2 in the blood. So we overinflate the body (lungs) with just a bit more CO2 to get them breathing.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn addition, you notice that people \"asphyxiate\" with too much NO2 or some other gas? That's because the body does not respond to being \"starved\" of Oxygen, but to too much CO2. No CO2 overload, no extra breathing.\n\n(The reasons behind this are a bit more complicated, but it has to do with a relationship between CO2 and Carbonic Acid, as well as acid-levels (pH) in the blood. But that's a bit more than an ELI5 explanation)",
"Former 911 operator. The breathing part of CPR is way less useful than the compressions. In most cases such as cardiac arrest the breathing may not be needed at all.\n\nBreathing is usually only advised when the subject is suffering from a lack of oxygen (drowning, choking, hanging). In which case their lungs have likely processed most of the oxygen they can. So you're second hand breath with lowered oxygen is better than the air inside their lungs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
88hlkn
|
how can bird/predators eat bugs or insects that are venomous?
|
I always wonder how they eat insects that has poison/venomous insects ( or do that realize they have poison and not choose to eat???)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88hlkn/eli5_how_can_birdpredators_eat_bugs_or_insects/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwknzw1",
"dwko9n1"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a difference between poison and venom. Poison takes effect when eaten or inhaled. Venom takes effect when injected into the blood, typically through a bite or sting. Their predators may produce a natural anti-toxin or, in the case of those that prey on venomous creatures, are just really good at avoiding getting hit.",
"Venom and poison is not the same thing.\n\nEating a venomous animal is not a necessary a problem. A venom is something that is dangerous if injected with a fangs, singer or som other way.\n\nYou can eat most venom as they are broken down by the instants. Venom often proteins like meat and is broken down into amino acids.\n\nVenom are dangerous if injected. Poison are dangerous if you eat them. Poison is of course also dangerous if injected.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1vqmgi
|
why are many americans preoccupied with their ancestry?
|
"Oh, I'm an Irish-American," or a "African-American," or "Chinese-American" when their last relative to step off the boat was at least 4 generations ago, if not longer.
Is it because of the newness of America, and thus people feel there's less of a distinct culture there?
And I'm guilty of this too, being an American fascinated by his ancestry.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vqmgi/why_are_many_americans_preoccupied_with_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceuumhz",
"ceuuzrt"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"You're pretty much right. America is relatively new, and it is a cultural melting pot. America is one of the most diverse nations in the world, so people like to be labelled as more than just an \"American.\"",
"It's funny because Australia is even more new and barely anyone here cares about their ancestry beyond, \"That's interesting.\" I never hear anyone say that they're \"Irish Australian\" or \"Welsh Australian\". "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.