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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
434zas
|
why do hospitals use a lot of stainless steel? what properties does it have that makes it so prominent?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/434zas/eli5_why_do_hospitals_use_a_lot_of_stainless/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czfhpac"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Easy to sterilise, not very expensive, corrosion resistant so will last a while despite the cleaning. Generally quite cheap, and has adequate mechanical properties for most healthcare requirements. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2dbhfc
|
social constructivism
|
Trying to do an assignment for qualitative research. Getting bogged down in jargon and long winded explanations. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dbhfc/eli5social_constructivism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjnxvz0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Alright, so I'm assuming we're talking about sociology here? Social constructivism (in the context of sociology) is both an ontology and an epistemology. \n\nAs an ontology, it's the belief that reality is socially constructed. So things have *objective social properties*. For example, a chair is objectively a chair if it's in the context of being considered a chair socially. This is opposed to complete positivism, whereby 'chair' isn't actually a property of the thing (OR it is, and is regardless of context), or complete relativism, whereby 'chair' is completely subjective and not a property of the thing if the individual doesn't consider it a chair (or, rather, that the chair has no 'real' properties, and is just an interpretation of phenomena). \n\nAs an epistemology, it's the belief that knowledge is socially constructed. So, take for example, the statement 'The rain dance makes it rain' (and lets assume that it doesn't in the physical sense). Seeing as this isn't \"true\" scientifically, can we say that knowing that 'the rain dance makes it rain' is actually \"knowledge\"? A positivist would say no, and on the opposite end of spectrum a complete relativist would deny the possibility of \"knowledge\", a social constructivist would argue that it can be knowledge in some cultures or social situations, but not in others\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2cyhvv
|
as a beginner space enthusiast, is it worth it to buy a 400$ telescope or is a 100-150$ setup just as good?
|
Would I be able to see galaxies? how detailed if so? And also why are telescopes so expensive, isnt it just glass and mirrors arranged in a now well know fashion to make them work well.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cyhvv/eli5as_a_beginner_space_enthusiast_is_it_worth_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjkas79",
"cjkb11h",
"cjkem2c"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"The quality and precision of the glass/mirrors required is what makes them expensive.",
"With any hobby, you want to start small. Start with a basic unit and learn how to use it. You will learn a bunch of things. One of them might be that you are not really that into using a telescope. If so, then you didn't waste $400 on a clothes drying rack. If not, you will learn about what you really hate about using a cheep telescope. Now when you look at higher end units you know what to look for. You'll know you want a solid base or what magnification levels you desire. You will know what features you wish you had and what ones you don't use. Not only will you appreciate it more, you will have exactly what you want.",
"Long time stargazer here. A lot of great advice here that should be applied to almost anything BUT astronomy. It's one of the first rules amateur astronomers learn. Do not bother with cheap telescopes, unless you're getting a steal secondhand, and ESPECIALLY don't get those shitty ones from toy stores.\n\nThe problem is, if you buy a cheap telescope then you're limiting the universe for yourself. You'll be able to see some planets and you might fluke it and see some of the brighter clusters and galaxies, but your reaction will be \"is that it?\"\n\nNow, don't go overboard and spend a grand straight away. An expensive telescope isn't necessarily a good one. The most important attribute by far is 'aperture'. This determines how much light enters the telescope, and more light means better clarity and detail. I recommend no less than a 6 inch to start with, preferably 8. The stock magnification lens that usually come with telescopes aren't great but they're totally fine initially. You normally get two – high magnification for planetgazing and a medium one for deep sky objects like galaxies etc. \n\nA Dobsonian is a classic first time telescope and highly recommended. An 8 inch in an area with little light pollution will reveal the wonders of the universe and it'll keep giving for years. Shit dude, the first time seeing Saturn through a Dobbie blew me away; I was literally speechless. If you fall in love with astronomy after that, you can go bigger or try electronic telescopes where you plug in what you want to see and it automatically finds it, which saves you the frustration of finding these deep sky objects (some find that part the best fun).\n\nI'd absolutely recommend spending the $400 but you don't need to go any higher than that. At the very least, if you don't enjoy it, you have a quirky bit of art in your house that looks cool and will help get you laid."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
34sn0e
|
why wont google make their youtube app work while your phone is locked?
|
I'm guessing they make more money this way is it because of advertisements?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34sn0e/eli5_why_wont_google_make_their_youtube_app_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqxpgio",
"cqxq2iq",
"cqxqgs2",
"cqxrtbz"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nAlthough some videos are still disabled from playing in the background during that, probably because of the terms they gave the record companies in exchange for not being sued to oblivion. ",
"I think it deals with getting accurate data metrics. Maybe if you have it running in the backer do you are not as likely to click on an ad as a company would like and therefore ad revenue would potentially decrease because of lack of clicks/attention.",
"Related question: is there a way to play YouTube videos in the background?",
"Probably just to keep people from loading up a playlist and using their service like an audio streaming service. I was disappointed just like everyone else was when I tried to do it and discovered that it just doesn't work like we all hoped it would. And while they could still pester you with those annoying commercials with the SKIP AD button, even though you'd still hear the ad play out in its entirety unless you stopped to unlock and click that minor annoyance away to get to the next track in your playlist...the people buying the ads would still rather have the clicks. So, the answer to your question is money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/musickey"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
clkblv
|
how does life on earth recover after a mass extinction?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/clkblv/eli5_how_does_life_on_earth_recover_after_a_mass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evweddx",
"evwehz7"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"There are always survivors after mass extinctions. Sometimes there's a lot, sometimes not so much. But they're always there.\n\nThose survivors branch out into newly unoccupied lands and niches. They evolve to fit those new climates and food webs. Slowly, they diverge from their original species, just as the original species can evolve to something different, and then you have two species. Continue doing that for millions of years and Earth is refilled.\n\nIf you're talking about the one happening now, there are quite a few species that are booming, especially city scavengers like rats and birds. Some insects are rapidly increasing in numbers as their predators collapse.",
"Typically, in such events, not all life is extinguished. Some types/species survive because the specific nature and aftermath of the extinction event means that those lifeforms aren’t affected to point of extinction.\n\nSo, an event which ravages the land and air, but leaves the oceans somewhat unaffected, can allow some life - however basic - to survive in the long-term. This life typically then adapts to changes in global ecosystem, successfully, and starts to fill ecological niches left by the extinct species. \n\nInto the longer term this can means evolving into lifeforms which are notably different from their origins - e.g. aquatic species become amphibious, and then from amphibious to fully land-dwelling or airborne.\n\nSometimes - as in the extinction of the dinosaurs - small, burrowing mammals can shelter and survive on meagre food supplies where larger creatures can’t, because the food chain is more complex, larger, and typically above ground where nothing much can survive. These survivors go on to ‘inherit the Earth’."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33vxdr
|
what are water stains made of and how do they form?
|
Water stains such as these: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33vxdr/eli5_what_are_water_stains_made_of_and_how_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqove48"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"liquid water contains dissolved minerals. once the water evaporates, the minerals stay. that's what you see.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/3261408849_09072d4b25_b.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
aownox
|
the ongoing online censorship conflict?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aownox/eli5_the_ongoing_online_censorship_conflict/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eg41md3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A Chinese company named $0.10 invested $150 mil in reddit.. so fucking what I would too if I had the money. What successful social media companies like Reddit realize is that in the world of web development 'Content is King'"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
fxdnm4
|
what is the vision of an eagle actually like?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fxdnm4/eli5_what_is_the_vision_of_an_eagle_actually_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmtq2bu",
"fmtq91z"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Eagles eyes differ from our in two important ways.\n\nFirst, they have more cones in their retinas. This means that more light can enter and be perceived. This allows them to see fine details and has a similar effect to increasing the pixel density. Our eyes are like a 144p YouTube video and eagles are like a 1080p.\n\nSecond, there is a structure in our eyes full of those cones called a fovea. Human fovea are very shallow, like a bowl, and eagles are very deep. This makes their eyes more like a telephoto lens. This means the center of their vision is very clear and they are permanently “zoomed in.”\n\nAnother way to explain this is that eagles have 20/5 or 20/4 vision under ideal viewing conditions. You may have heard that perfect human vision is called 20/20. \n\nThis means if there is an eye chart, and you stand 20 feet away from it, you can see the majority of the chart that most humans can see at 20 feet away. If a human had 20/30 vision, their vision would be bad because the chart would be as hard to read as if it was 30 feet away.\n\nThis means that for eagles, if they sit 20 feet away from a eye chart, they can see it as clearly as you would standing 5 feet away from the same chart.",
"Eagle eyes have 5x the retina cell density but are about the same size, giving them much greater resolving power than human eyes.\n\nThis means that while you can clearly see a tree from half a mile away, an eagle can see the leaves - or more ~~deliciously~~ importantly, the squirrels."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2pedzq
|
why do high performance variants of cars often not come to the united states?
|
I'm thinking Civic Type R, Ford Focus RS, Nissan GTR (the previous ones, we have it now), VW Scrirocco, and so on. The US has the largest car market in the world and has an appetite for performance vehicles, why does it seem that some automakers refuse to sell us the good stuff?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pedzq/eli5_why_do_high_performance_variants_of_cars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmvyezz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it's not seen as worthwhile to make the adjustments needed to pass U.S. emissions requirements for the number of cars they will sell. In other cases the cars would be prohibitively expensive. For example, a really high performance AWD 300+ hp version of a compact car that starts at $16 K in the U.S. could be as much as $40K. In Europe, cars are already much more expensive than they are here and most people buy smaller cars, so it's an easier sell. In the U.S. many people still see smaller cars as \"cheap\" so it's a tougher sell to ask $40k for \"just a Focus\" even if it's AWD and has 300 hp. This seems to be changing slowly but surely though. Ford has brought the medium-hot Focus already and word is they are brining the hot-hot one. They brought us a spicy Fiesta which I never thought I'd see. As for the Scirocco, I'm pretty sure that was a price issue too. The U.S. market is different that Europe, I don't think VW saw a niche for it here. It would have to be priced too close to an Audi TT and too much more than a VW GTI and it kind of overlaps the higher end GTI/ Golf R32 etc. Besides that IMO the Scirocco was damn ugly. Looks like a Golf that got sat on by a circus elephant if you as me. The new one definitely did NOT do justice to the beautiful, long, sleek lines of the Mk I and Mk II Giuguaro designed Sciroccos IMO. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5hf2q5
|
when i was a kid, why was channel 3 the chosen aux/input for most game systems or vhs players?
|
With nearly two decades of gaming under my belt, I have wondered this quite a bit. I remember channel three being an actual channel and not just the fragments of one fighting its way through a cloud of static, yet when I would boot up my system, it would quickly be overpowered. If my memory serves correctly, we had a channel 1 and channel 2 as well, so why was channel 3 chosen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hf2q5/eli5_when_i_was_a_kid_why_was_channel_3_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dazp8qp",
"dazqfgr",
"dazupwq",
"dazxevn"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The TV I had in 1980 didn't have a channel 1. It went from UHF to 2-13.\n\nI lived in Los Angeles and there was nothing on channel 3. This was the case for a lot of large cities:\n\n > Both designs were originally sold in North America with or without an additional switch accessible via a hole in the bottom which can toggle the console's TV output to either channel 2 or channel 3. Those without the switch can output only on channel 3, which was the VHF channel originally least used in the most populous broadcast regions.\n\n[Sauce](_URL_0_)",
"Channel 3 had the least number of TV stations assigned to it. The FCC would not put two stations which are geographically close on adjacent channels. There are gaps in the spectrum between 4+5, 6+7, and 13+14 so they can be co-located. So you could have either 2+4 or 3 in one city. For a while there was only one CH 3 in the US. Ch 1 was removed from the spectrum very early on. If your TV has Ch 1, it is a collectors item. ",
"Most devices that used RF adapters (what you used to plug your NES into your TV's antenna/cable jack) actually had switches on them to select between channel 3 or 4. See: _URL_0_\n\nMost media markets did not have something broadcasting on *both* channel 3 and channel 4 because the frequencies that carried those particular channels were more likely to interfere with each other over the air (In my area, we had broadcast affiliates on channels 2, 4, and 5, but nothing on channel 3). Channel 1 was off-limits to US broadcasters, but it wasn't an option for AUX devices either because all but the earliest TVs couldn't even tune to it (it basically didn't exist).\n\nSo, choosing Ch3 (or Ch4) for RF adapters was mainly a convenience, although, as you say, even if your area did have something on both 3 and 4, it would not limit your ability to use an AUX device on those channels when you wanted to.",
"Ch 2,3 are the most common, easy available on the dial so they were both available for NES, Atari, etc.\n\nI have literally never seen channel 1 used for anything and on my old dial-knob TV below CH 2 was UHF. Once you set that choice the UHF dial (another dial) is used to choose the UHF frequency. That TV was made in the mid 70's near around the time I was born."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_2600_hardware"
],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/l2UWcMO.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
205n9p
|
what does it mean for mm of rainfall to fall?
|
Is it like mm squared or what? I really have a hard time visualizing what 75mm in 2 hours would look like.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/205n9p/eli5_what_does_it_mean_for_mm_of_rainfall_to_fall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfzzn4r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you have a glass out there to catch the rainfall, you can then measure how much it has rained by measuring how deep the water is in the glass. \n\nThe size of the glass doesn't matter because a wider glass will simply catch more rainfall than a skinny glass. But they will still have the same water depth after the storm."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ryym5
|
eili5: what happens to all the debt owed when a person declares for personal bankruptcy?
|
Warren Sapp is a current example that made me think about it. He has like $7 million in assets but $25 million in debt or something, so since he's past his prime and isn't going to make that kind of money as an analyst, what happens to him now? I found this example striking for some weird reason but it applies to pretty much any personal bankruptcy; what happens to the debtors? Are they just fucked or what?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ryym5/eili5_what_happens_to_all_the_debt_owed_when_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c49rd0j",
"c49rl45",
"c49slxu"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"If the court doesn't reward them any money, the creditor (Warren is the debtor) just loses out on the money.\n\nHowever, there's no certainty that he will declare bankruptcy. He could invest the money in something that pays out a high enough percentage so that he can keep paying on his debt.\n\nAdditionally, depending on the type of bankruptcy, his debt might be restructured instead of removed to help him pay it off. They could reduce the amount of the debt or reduce (or freeze) the interest of the debt. ",
"The people who he owes money to eat it. Usually works out OK because the cost of them having to eat it is covered under the interest that they charge on the loan. The more likely you're likely to default / go bankrupt on it, the more interest you get charged. \n\nBad things happen when a bunch of people can't pay back a loan and the company loaning it is screwed. You might of heard of it. It happened in 2008.",
"Adding to what the previous guys said; the interest they charged on the loans will pay back some of it but not all of it. Also, think of it like insurance. Insurers have to pay out from time to time but the money they make on the payments waaay exceeds what they pay out in claims. The lender (creditor) loses out this time but at the same time makes millions more from others who successfully pay back their loans on the interests on them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d12cf2
|
how does the home button on the iphone 7/8 feel like an actual button when it’s on, even though you can clearly tell that it doesn’t move when the phone is off? what sensors provide this illusion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d12cf2/eli5_how_does_the_home_button_on_the_iphone_78/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezgbdpt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Haptic feedback\n\nWhen you press a button on the touchscreen the phone vibrates a bit. Your brain makes a lot of assumptions about inputs so when you push a button and your hand registers a click your brain assumes it as from the real button regardless of which part of the phone buzzed\n\nThe same is true if you have the clicks on when you type on your smartphone keyboard. Just the normal vibration motor making little pulses"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7uhslu
|
why are there alcohol iv bags in hospitals?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7uhslu/eli5_why_are_there_alcohol_iv_bags_in_hospitals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtkdhmj"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"When someone gets methanol poisoning, they're actually being poisoned by the breakdown products of methanol rather than the methanol itself. Both ethanol and methanol are broken down by the same enzyme (alcohol dehydrogenase), and that enzyme preferentially acts on ethanol rather than methanol. Thus, one of the treatments for methanol poisoning is providing ethanol, which makes it so that the body stops breaking down the methanol and has a chance to eliminate the methanol and the toxic byproducts before they cause too much damage."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
alcjtd
|
how is a standing electromagnetic wave produced? what keeps it fixed in place?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/alcjtd/eli5how_is_a_standing_electromagnetic_wave/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efct3u8",
"efcxvtg"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Electromagnetic waves have a certain amount of energy. If the \"space\" in which you create this wave is confined by higher energy barriers (high enough that can be considered infinite), then this \"wave\" will be fixed at the barriers and it will be oscillating in the space within, since it is unable to cross them and travel.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEdit: I typed my first comment having in mind the 2D infinite well from quantum mechanics. I just remembered another option to create standing waves is by combining two waves of different (appropriate) phase. When these two waves \"meet\" they combine giving birth to a new wave. If designed correctly, points of zero vibration (nodes) will be formed along its length, making the waves between nodes standing waves. ",
"If you permanently will throw two stones in water In right time you get standing wave between stones "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1i9ygo
|
technical trading
|
I want to know more about it to begin investing some of my money. (How) does it work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i9ygo/eli5_technical_trading/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb2ew3w",
"cb2exyj"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ discusses it. However please consider why you are drawn to this particular investing strategy. If you are unfamiliar with investing, starting with a very hands-on strategy may just result in spending a lot on trading commissions and losing money on trying to time the market. You may want to instead invest in a index-fund that will mirror overall market performance with significantly lower costs.",
"Technical traders look for price action and trends to predict the price of a stock or commodity. Often, price pattern repeat themselves and can be used to guess if a stock's price will go up or down.\n\nThere are many different strategies when it comes to technical trading. Some people look at price alone. Others use indicators like volume, moving averages, and overbought/oversold indicators. Other people have better results looking for key retracement ratios and regression channels.\n\nTechnical trading is in contrast to fundamental trading, where decisions are made based if a stock's price is overvalued or undervalued.\n\nFinally a head's up: Reddit's /r/investing and /r/personalfinance are very against technical trading and would love to tell you how stupid it is. Most of them are against picking individual stocks at all. But, there are people who make a lot of money using technical analysis and it is definitely a valid strategy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/02/091802.asp"
],
[]
] |
|
9kdj0m
|
how does eyesight become blurry? and why does squinting fix this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9kdj0m/eli5_how_does_eyesight_become_blurry_and_why_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6ycdk5",
"e6ycfey"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Squinting changes the tension on your eye and distorts its shape.\n\nYour eye is kind of like a water balloon and light shines into it and against the back of your eyeball where your cones make it into signals for your brain.\n\nSometimes the eyeball loses a bit of shape and the the image isn't clear on the back of your eye anymore.\n\nSquinting squeezes the eye slightly, light a gentle squeeze on a water balloon and the shape changes and that means that light passes through it a little differently. \n\nSometimes a squint is enough to make the eye the right shape for the picture on the back of your eye to be in focus.",
"So this has been explained to me by my eye doctor, so I may have forgotten some parts. When your eyes start to get blurry where you can't see it, in my instance at least, it was my eye growing into a more football shape, with it longer in width than in height. This changes the way the light hits inside your eyes, rather than at the back of your eye like its supposed to, it may focus halfway into your eye (if that makes sense). When you squint you are changing the amount of light going into your eyes, which helps you to see better because it is focusing a different way within your eye. Almost like when you use a pinhole camera. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5ulxyx
|
how do companies like redhat and canonical make money / remain in business?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ulxyx/eli5_how_do_companies_like_redhat_and_canonical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dduzuwi",
"ddv04os"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Red Hat charges subscription support fees. They're a services company that gives people free software to create a demand for their paid services. The software is the \"free printer\"; the services are the very expensive ink. ",
"The big money in software is not directly in licensing but in support. Most software products bundle these together in some way. However RedHat and Canonical do not take any money for the development of their product but rather takes money on support. Imagine you are the CTO of a big bank. Your company make a lot of money but you also have a lot of unique requirements for your IT infrastructure. You might want to be able to verify that the software you run are correct and that there are no back doors. You might want the ability to adapt the software to your needs and have full control over that process. So you want an open source system so you are free to look at and modify the code. However you want someone to fix the problems you have at 2am that stops the business and lose you money. And who knows how your operating system works better then the people who put it together and developed big parts of it? So you pay RedHat or Canonical support fees so you can call them up at strange times and have experts fix your problems."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
25xwbn
|
how does a group like the illuminati , who were originally a group of free thinkers from the 1700's now be accused of trying to take over the world?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25xwbn/eli5how_does_a_group_like_the_illuminati_who_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chlrqg6",
"chlrr44",
"chlrvdg",
"chlrvw0",
"chlrypn",
"chls3gp",
"chlseex",
"chlsyd9",
"chlsz4j",
"chlt1rh",
"chlt47q",
"chlt72z",
"chlt9gg",
"chltbzb",
"chltf68",
"chltffr",
"chlu4a5",
"chlu9ba",
"chlul91",
"chlutyz",
"chluu4n",
"chlvgig",
"chlvi6l",
"chlvioe",
"chlvlcs",
"chlvw77",
"chlvwv6",
"chlw36v",
"chlw42e",
"chlwqng",
"chlwrg9",
"chlx1z3",
"chlx6ka",
"chlx9hr",
"chlxxe3",
"chlxy8j",
"chly7cv",
"chlyy4x",
"chlz79s",
"chlzqdc",
"chlzu6w",
"chm0flg",
"chm0hp9",
"chm0n6h",
"chm11j3",
"chm11ld",
"chm13bv",
"chm2l39",
"chm3197",
"chm3i0a",
"chm3i75",
"chm3nml",
"chm45la",
"chm45wt",
"chm4909",
"chm4rs1",
"chm4ufp",
"chm563s",
"chm56zo",
"chm5cfo",
"chm5t4q",
"chm62hv",
"chm66ve",
"chm67k8",
"chm6dzn",
"chm82wj",
"chm83ie",
"chm8d11",
"chm8dm3",
"chm8noa",
"chm8oi2",
"chm8oqm",
"chm9f93",
"chm9qex",
"chma3gc",
"chma3s5",
"chmb9sr",
"chmbgxh",
"chmblxx",
"chmclhc",
"chmez8o",
"chmfij8",
"chmgdfd",
"chmhpi5",
"chmie8o",
"chmj7a4",
"chmjurd",
"chmvd83",
"chmwrwi"
],
"score": [
5,
27,
5,
4,
155,
12,
1602,
2,
2501,
6,
3,
2,
29,
28,
3,
2,
3,
3,
12,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
14,
2,
8,
7,
3,
8,
2,
3,
2,
5,
8,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
9,
3,
2,
3,
8,
6,
5,
6,
3,
3,
14,
20,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
8,
5,
2,
3,
3,
7,
4,
4,
4,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
7,
5,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Only the craziest believe that crap. This is what they alway say, \"Watch this video on YouTube. It will destroy your view of the world.\" ",
"If such a group exists it would have to obtain some sort of power, likely economic power.\n\nPower tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolute.\nalso, a free thinker is not by default a kind person, even athens as a democraty still held slaves, people want freedom to do what THEY like and that will cause conflict with others who do not agree. \n\nIf someone has the freedom to chose between employees then his choice decides an important part of said employee his life, the employee has little to no control over this and loses the freedom to do as he likes, since his choice is likely to end badly for him.\n\nSimply put, for one man to be free another man has to pay the price.",
"These people are off base slightly. Could have nothing to do with power and money.\n\nFree thinking was a scary thing (and still is to a lot of the 'powerful' in the world). To survive you had to be anonymous. Just like in todays age of propaganda if you are not to be taken seriously you are discredited. \n\nSo they make up tons of crap and spread it around to ensure the average Joe wants nothing to do with them. A bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists that dont have names and no one has ever seen. not much of a threat right?",
"Conspiracy theorists and large amounts of crack.",
"Humans love to see patterns. Think about constellations, it's just a bunch of stars. Now think about millions of people thinking about why the world is the way it is. In particular, why does the world seem unfair. Given enough time, people find reasons, even if they are not real. ",
"I'm sure tons of influential/rich men get together for 'secret' meetings and chuckle together over what they're getting away with. There's not much difference between this and the Illuminati myth-- one just sounds more dramatic and involves masks. I'm sure the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson like to think of themselves as being on the same level of power as an Illuminati alumni . \n\nedit: last name",
"Because blaming shit on some secret conspiracy is way easier than trying to actually understand complex topics.\n\nEdit:\nObviously I rustled some jimmies here. I agree my comment is not especially intelligently worded, but I think my point stands. The comment by /u/Massenhausen (which is the top comment as I'm writing this) gives great insight into the genesis of the Illuminati and was extremely interesting to read. But I think it has very little to do with why the Illuminati are thought to be some world conspiracy club *today*. While it does explain *why* there's this general vibe of secrecy around them, I think that's not only irrelevant, but completely unknown to most of the people talking conspiracy gibberish on the internet. If it's not the Illuminati, it's the Freemasons, the Bilderberg Group, or, if everything else fails, the Jews. \n\nNow in the light of certain recent events, \"I TOLD YOU BUT YOU CALLED ME PARANOID!!\" is a regular, and to a certain degree valid, response (this comment section included). BUT: If you buy into enough crazy ideas, there's always a chance that reality sooner or later might vaguely resemble your crazy idea. And that is absolutely no validation of all your other crazy ideas (HAARP, anyone?). What those people also fail to see is that as much of a scandal the whole NSA story is, in my opinion it's *not* a conspiracy. It's the result of failed checks and balances and a group of people who *themselves* were (and are) so paranoid (or driven by a \"we can technically do it, so why not?\"-mentality) that they took a huge dump on the US constitution. But I think this rather was (and is) a series of not always related decisions by individuals than one big, evil plan. So, unconstitutional? Yes. A conspiracy? No. \n\nAnd I think that applies to most topics considered conspiracy theories. The idea that a large, secret group pursues world domination or tries to brainwash us sheeple for said reason is ridiculous. A lot of shit happens that shouldn't, but a lot of that shit is the result of decisions of individuals that pursue very egoistic goals, mostly money and power. That is either called business or politics, but *not* a conspiracy. \n\nBut yeah, then again I guess that's exactly what they want me to think, right?\n\nEdit 2: Wow, thank you kind stranger! My first gold!",
"A history of the conspiracy theory is covered in [this pamphlet](_URL_0_), which traces its origins to the backlash against the French Revolution. The thesis is basically that people (both elites and regular folk) turn to conspiracy theories to explain complex changes happening in society. ",
"I apologize for the length, but you've opened up a can of worms with this question. \n\nDescribing the historical Illuminati as just \"a group of free thinkers\" is a bit misleading. The order was essentially geared towards a strict regime of moral education, which involved writing monthly confessionals (the \"quibus licet\" reports) and spying on other members, as well as using the order's influences to get the supposedly morally superior initiates influential positions in order to *slowly* reform society to a utopian state where everyone would be so rational that any form of government would no longer be necessary. Adam Weishaupt, the founder, was heavily influenced by the writings of Antoine Court de Gébelin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who were both really big on ideas like primitivism and the noble savage. At the same time, the order was also extremely deceptive, using a variety of myths (such as claiming to be descendants of the Knights Templar) to attract members and it also had a very radical required reading list. As members advanced in the order, they were expected to read scandalous literature like d'Holbach's *Christianity Unveiled*. \n\nUntil the Bavarian government published *Einige Originalschriften des Illuminatenordens* and *Nachtrag von Weitern Originalschriften* in 1787, two large collections of confiscated order documents and really the main source of what we know about the order, the only real information on the Illuminati came from disgruntled defectors, especially the juridical deposits of Joseph Utzschneider and two of his colleagues, Cosandey and Grünberg. Utzschneider had defected in early 1783 after someone tried to coerce him to steal letters from the Duchess Marie Anne of Saxony, the former electress of Bavaria and an opponent of Hapsburg acquisition of Bavaria. To simplify an incredibly complex affair: Joseph II, the Holy Roman Emperor, wanted Bavaria; the Prince-Elector of Bavaria, Karl Theodor, wanted to trade off Bavaria; and Frederick the Great did not want Joseph II to get Bavaria. Joseph II had tried to take advantage of a succession dispute in 1777, when Karl Theodor had become the heir of Bavaria despite not really wanting it (he was already the Elector of the Palatinate), to achieve his goals but ended up losing a war against Frederick the Great instead. However, Joseph II had a new plan in 1783, which a majority within the Munich branch of the Illuminati supported, and Marie Anne had written to Frederick the Great to help put a stop to it. The letters Utzschneider were asked to steal were from Frederick the Great. So there was a clear political element in the suppression, and it's not surprising that the juridical deposit left by Utzschneider et al. says stuff like:\n\n > They also boast that they are in possession of the secret of opening and reclosing letters without the circumstance being perceived. \n\nand\n\n > The end sanctifies the means. The welfare of the Order will be a justification for calumnies, poisonings, assassinations, perjuries, treasons, rebellions; in short, for all that the prejudices of men lead them to call crimes. \n\nas well as\n\n > They made us give answers in writing to the following questions: How would it be possible to devise one single system of morals and one common Government for all Europe, and what means should be employed to effectuate it?\n\nThe first two are complete crock, of course, but I imagine that the third quote is a misinterpretation (if it did happen). In *The Genesis of German Conservatism*, Klaus Epstein mentions that the equally incorrect idea that the superiors in the order had the \"power of life and death\" over their subordinates was very widespread. It did not help that the authorities found a recipe for poison during a search of Xavier Zwack's house in 1786. In addition, the suppression of the Illuminati was a comparatively limited affair. Even though there were edicts in Mainz and Bonn (coupled with an edict issued by Joseph II that tried to bring freemasonry closer under imperial control), Bavaria was the only territory I'm aware of where members were actually arrested. Johann Bode would, with the support of the ruling dukes of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg and Saxe-Weimar, continue to direct the order from either Weimar or Gotha (not entirely sure which, unfortunately) until its demise in either 1787 or 1788, but he would also help establish the *Philadelphe* circle while visiting Paris in 1787 as well as the *Deutsche Freimaurerbund* in 1790, which was for all intents and purposes an extension of the Illuminati. So conspiracy theorists had plenty to work with, even though Bode effectively purged all radical elements out of the Illuminati and seems to mainly have been interested in masonic reform.\n\nThe *Originalschriften*, which would be joined by the third volume *Die Neuesten Arbeiten des Spartacus und Philo in dem Illuminatenorden* in 1793 (consisting of documents stolen by a defector), the juridical deposits, and other documents were all used by Augustin Barruel to support the idea that the French Revolution had been engineered by the Illuminati in his 1797 *Memoires Illustrating the History of Jacobinism*. John Robison, a scottish professor, published *Proofs of a Conspiracy* the same year, which makes essentially the same argument as Barruel. To simplify a bit, Robison and Barruel both saw the Illuminati as anti-Christian attempts to destroy the natural order of things born out of the radical elements of the French Enlightenment. Their books were incredibly influential and pretty much delineated the conspiratorial interpretation of the Illuminati, later authors have reinterpreted this depending on their anxieties but the core is the same. Nesta Webster tacked on an anti-semitic element into the whole affair and saw the history of the Illuminati as beginning before 1776, the John Birch Society saw Weishaupt as the originator of the Communist Conspiracy, and so on. The idea of a \"world domination\" oriented Illuminati may, if you'll forgive me for speculating, have come during the Cold War period.\n\n**tl;dr The Illuminati wanted Austrian acquisition of Bavaria. Bavarian loyalists defected and gave exaggerated testimony to demonize the order. House searches and confiscated documents seemed to support these claims, plus the continued existence of the Illuminati in Northern Germany was seen as evidence that they were still up to no good (despite it essentially being a masonic reform movement at this point). Robison and Barruel spun all of this into conspiratorial narratives about the french revolution, which later authors have interpreted depending on their own views.**\n\nSources:\n\n* Neugebauer-Wölk, Monika. \"Illuminaten\" in *The Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism*, ed. Wouter Hanegraff. Brill, 2006.\n\n* Israel, Jonathan. \"Chapter 31: Aufklärung and Secret Societies\" in *Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790*. Oxford University Press, 2011.\n\n* Epstein, Klaus. *The Genesis of German Conservatism*. Princeton University Press, 1966.\n\n* McIntosh, Christopher. *The Rose Cross and the Age of Reason*. SUNY, 2011.\n\nThe excerpts from the juridical deposit are taken from Augustin Barruel's *Memoirs*, but I don't know the exact page number or volume. The whole depositcan be read [here](_URL_0_), but the article is not as good as some of the author's later writing.\n\n**EDIT:** Rewrote the concluding paragraph.\n\n**EDIT #2:** To my critics, this is about as simple as you can get without vastly distorting the historical record. But I agree that it was a bad decision to not include a tl;dr, so I've rectified that.\n\n**EDIT #3:** Thanks for the gold, kind strangers! I'll be sure to put in a good word for you when I return to JIDF headquarters later to collect my paycheck (and yes, they do pay me by the word.)",
"Because Conspiracy Theorists are, for lack of a better phrase, cuckoo bananas crazy. As the venerable Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine puts it, conspiracy theorists are seemingly incapable of believing there's any kind of randomness to the world, especially concerning acts of evil. It's just not fathomable to them that a small terrorist cell can successfully pull of a single suicide bombing, it's not possible that a lone man can choose to assassinate a president, and there's sure as he'll no way all the governments of the world are simply normal, bumbling idiots trying to keep a land of millions as prosperous as possible, failing almost half the time. No, every sinister thing in this world, particularly America, is run by one (or two or three) sinister cabal(s) that has ruled the world for centuries and keeps that grip on our feeble minds through confusion, misinformation, and orchestrated catastrophes. To me the most disgusting and at the same time most hilarious of these crackpot \"theories\" is the 9/11 truther movement. For those of you who don't listen to the 230 lbs. of king-crazy that is Alex Jones, these horrible people think that the planes were initially flown to Chicago (because somehow one fat man with no legitimate connections knows all the very specific details), the passengers taken out and gassed (yes, like full-on Schindler's List, Auschwitz execution-style gassing), and the empty planes were flown back to NY into the towers, but the towers didn't actually collapse from the impact and unimaginably hot, burning jet fuel. No, they were controlled demolitions complete with thousands of explosive squibs, which would've taken weeks to place but somehow went unnoticed by the countless people in and around that building for those weeks. The disgusting part is these people thinking that the American government did this to their own people. I would never defend a politician, as they are all lying fuckholes, and I'm definitely not what one would call a \"patriot\", but that shit's just ridiculous and it takes away any respect one might have had for the innocents who lost their lives and a spit in the faces of the families of those people. The hilarious part is the glaring piece of evidence in their way; no matter how solid they may believe their bullshit is (and it's assuredly not, rife with holes and logical inconsistencies), the undeniable fact of the matter is that George W. Bush was one of, if not the, most impotent, childlike, confused, and straight-up stupid world leader's to ever rule any world, and his cabinet was made up of likewise idiotic subordinates. Yet they somehow pulled the biggest swath of wool ever over the eyes of the entire planet. Preposterous! As for the Illuminati, I myself think their connection has nothing more to do with it than simply what they started as: a secret society of the higher-minded and at times better-connected (i.e. Politicians, the exorbitantly wealthy, etc.). To plenty this is enough of a paper-trail to point the finger at them. Plus, can a name sound more secretly sinister that \"illuminati\"? It's like it was tailor-made in the past for the morons of the future. Dan Brown's books surely didn't help, but I can't put blame with him as I don't imagine he believed the fiction he was writing. I assume he thought his books would be taken as gospel-truth as much as the architects of the bible believed their's would; not at all. ",
"Because people with power usually label any dissenting opinions as danger to the state/peace/whatever.\nBeen that way forever.",
" > free thinkers from the 1700's\n\nExactly. It's the same as Galileo or Columbus. If you think differently, you are crazy. Until you're right. ",
"Most reasonably intelligent people that believe in large conspiracies don't actually think there is a group that calls themselves the Illuminati running the planet. It is just a shorthand way of saying \"the powers that be\" or \"the secretive powers that be.\" The usage of the word can be traced to Robert Anton Wilson's *Illuminatus!* trilogy, a work of fiction that has nothing at all to do with the 1700s except for borrowing their nomenclature. \n\nAlso, the Illuminati are seldom accused of trying to take over the world; they are normally accused of trying to cement the power that they already have.",
"They're mostly just a ghost used to scapegoat. The real enemy is the small group of families that actually control business and war, e.g. Koch, Rothchilds and many more. Hired drones like Alex Jones and the info wars network are just fear mongering salesmen that peddle wares to the misinformed and paranoid.",
"What else is there left to do? \nJust take over already. \nAll hale Illuminati!\n",
"One thing to consider is the audience that believes this stuff. There are actually people that get paid BIG money to go from church to church giving lectures on this kinda stuff and it gets eaten up by the audience faster than they can shovel it. Google \"John Todd\" or \"The Grey Men Tapes\". Some of these clowns have even sued each other for using their \"original content\". Seriously. HEY, I MADE THAT STUFF UP!!!! I CAN PROVE IT!! Oh wait, I mean it's true.",
"Can someone **ELI5**: What does the Illuminati control?\n\n\nA few years ago a friend directed me to a 'documentary' (sorry, I forget the name), which related fractional reserve banking and money creation to world domination. Was kind of well made and very scary (in an entertaining way) but no real info beyond what someone who studied economics and finance would know\n\n\nGoldsmiths actually figured out fractional reserve banking centuries ago... but maybe that's part of a master plan?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**tl;dr** serious question: what is the general consensus of the overall 'plan'?",
"Because even today there are different interest groups that are working outside of the legal framework in order to force their will upon ordinary citizens. I start with another officially investigated and proved case of a secret society working as a shadow government in the modern times :\n\n > [Propaganda Due](_URL_10_) (Italian pronunciation: [propaˈɡanda ˈduːe]), or P2, was a Masonic lodge operating under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of Italy from 1945 to 1976 (when its charter was withdrawn), and a pseudo-Masonic, \"black\", or \"covert\" lodge operating illegally (in contravention of Article 18 of the Constitution of Italy banning secret associations) from 1976 to 1981. During the years that the lodge was headed by Licio Gelli, **P2 was implicated in numerous Italian crimes and mysteries, including the collapse of the Vatican-affiliated Banco Ambrosiano, the murders of journalist Mino Pecorelli and banker Roberto Calvi, and corruption cases within the nationwide bribe scandal Tangentopoli. P2 came to light through the investigations into the collapse of Michele Sindona's financial empire.[1]**\n\n > **P2 was sometimes referred to as a \"state within a state\"[2] or a \"shadow government\".[3] The lodge had among its members prominent journalists, members of parliament, industrialists, and military leaders—including Silvio Berlusconi, who later became Prime Minister of Italy; the Savoy pretender to the Italian throne Victor Emmanuel; and the heads of all three Italian intelligence services (at the time SISDE, SISMI and CESIS).**\n\nThen You have people like [David Rockefeller admitting in his memoirs](_URL_5_) to be helping in the creation of one world :\n\n > For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. **Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.**\n\nAnd plenty of secret para-military operations running outside of the governmental control :\n[Operation Gladio](_URL_9_)\n > Operation Gladio (Italian: Operazione Gladio) is the codename for a clandestine NATO \"stay-behind\" operation in Europe during the Cold War. Its purpose was to continue anti-communist actions in the event of a Soviet invasion and conquest. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organizations, \"Operation Gladio\" is used as an informal name for all stay-behind organizations. The name Gladio is the Italian form of gladius, a type of Roman shortsword.[1]\n\n[Operation Gladio and the Strategy of tension](_URL_0_)\n > The strategy of tension (Italian: strategia della tensione) is a tactic that aims to divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist actions.[1]\n\n > The term \"strategy of tension\" recurred during the trials that followed in the 1970s and 1980s Years of Lead ( \"anni di piombo\"), during which terror attacks and assassinations were committed by apparently neofascist terrorists related to the Operation Gladio.\n\n > The theory began with allegations that the United States government and the Greek military junta of 1967–1974 supported far-right terrorist groups in Italy and Turkey, where communism was growing in popularity, to spread panic among the population who would in turn demand stronger and more dictatorial governments.\n\n[European Parliament resolution concerning Gladio](_URL_6_)\n > **The 1990 European resolution condemned \"the existence for 40 years of a clandestine parallel intelligence\" as well as \"armed operations organization in several Member States of the Community\", which \"escaped all democratic controls and has been run by the secret services of the states concerned in collaboration with NATO.\" Denouncing the \"danger that such clandestine network may have interfered illegally in the internal political affairs of Member States or may still do so,\" especially before the fact that \"in certain Member States military secret services (or uncontrolled branches thereof) were involved in serious cases of terrorism and crime,\"** the Parliament demanded a \"a full investigation into the nature, structure, aims and all other aspects of these clandestine organizations or any splinter groups, their use for illegal interference in the internal political affairs of the countries concerned, the problem of terrorism in Europe and the possible collusion of the secret services of Member States or third countries.\"\n\n[National Security Study Memorandum 200](_URL_1_)\n > National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) was completed on December 10, 1974 by the United States National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger.\n\n > The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to U.S. national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development. **The policy gives \"paramount importance\" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries. This is to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the \"U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad\", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States.**\n\nDocumentaries on the topic of shadow government :\n\n[Wikileaks and the El-Masri case: Innocent CIA torture victim more than just a leaked cable](_URL_7_)\n > Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, and a victim of so-called \"extraordinary rendition.\" He was a car salesman in Germany, a father of six. **The CIA kidnapped him (in 2003) by mistake (his name sounds and looks identical to that of an actual terror suspect), and sent off to receive months of torture in Afghanistan.**\n\n > When the CIA realized he was innocent, he was flown to Albania and dumped on a back road without so much as an apology.\n\n > El-Masri's futile efforts at receiving justice in the U.S. are well-known, but the cables published this week by Wikileaks include revelations **the U.S. also warned German authorities not to allow a local investigation into his kidnapping and abuse.**\n\n[The Truthseeker: 9/11 & operation Gladio \\(E23\\)](_URL_3_)\n\n[Operation Gladio - Full 1992 documentary BBC](_URL_2_)\n\n[John Stockwell - CIA's War on Humans](_URL_8_)\n > Author John Stockwell stated: “Extrapolating the figures as best we can, there have been about 3,000 major covert operations and over 10,000 minor operations, all illegal, and all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries.” The targets of CIA destabilization have included, but are not limited to, the following countries: Grenada, Jamaica, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Iraq and Vietnam. Would they still be third world without our subversive economic destabilization efforts?\n\nFrom : The Praetorian Guard by John Stockwell, former CIA official, South End Press, p. 71\n\n[The Revolution Business](_URL_4_)\n > Democratic change has been demanded across the Middle East. But was what seems like a spontaneous revolution actually a strategically planned event, fabricated by 'revolution consultants' long in advance?\n\n > Revolution consultants are the worst nightmare of every regime. Srdja Popovic was a founder of the organisation 'Otpor', a revolution training school. It was instrumental in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s and has now inspired a new generation of activists. Political commentators like William Engdahl are convinced Otpor is being financed by the USA. \"The people from Otpor gave us a book in which they described all their strategies\", says Ezzedine Zaatour of the Tunisian uprising. \n\n > **That book was written by an American, Gene Sharp, and is now considered the \"revolution guide book\", being used by opposition movements worldwide. As Otpor release their latest gadget, a resistance training computer game produced by the International Centre on Nonviolent Conflict in the USA, world leaders are voicing their concerns. \"This is called a gentle coup!\", insists Hugo Chavez.**\n\nEDIT: Bold emphasis",
"I believe people tend to associate 'secret society' and 'government secrets' with 'diabolical agendas'. Which may or may not be the case. It's akin to people saying \"Why did that guy run from the cops if he didn't do anything wrong?\" The guy may or may not have done something wrong but he's presumed guilty because he tried to evade the police. It's the same thing with the 'Illuminati' and other secret societies. People tend to think \"If they're not doing anything wrong, then why is it all a secret?\" People can't grasp the concept that a secret society may be a secret for reasons of security. To the masses, if they're hiding themselves it simply **must** be because they're hiding their evil deeds.\n\nI think it's also because it's a 'secret' a secret society is an unknown entity and lets face it, humans have a history of completely fearing the unknown. Fear of the unknown is in our genes, it's instinct just like the fight or flight impulse when faced with danger. Some folks can effortlessly override those instincts, but when in large groups and population, fear spreads like a wild fire. In the human mind, anything that isn't known is automatically a danger until it's proven otherwise. It's a defense mechanism.\n\nAnd lets face it, popular media hasn't in the least bit helped to ease people's fears of the unknown. Someone else mentioned Dan Brown's work, that didn't help. Movies and literature about super spies i.e. James Bond and the Bourne series and many others have put the thoughts of dangerous conspiracies in the back of people's minds and that only fuels the paranoia.\n\nDo I think the Illuminati exists? It did at one time. It's possible that it still exists to this day however unlikely that is, but I seriously doubt a secret group founded for enlightenment would resort to the tactics they're being accused of today. If you're looking for shady organizations hell bent on controlling people and accumulating power, one needs to look at the politicians, greedy corporations and banks. They're the real threat, not the Illuminati.",
"Short answer: people can't distinguish between their imagination and deductive reasoning. \n\"I made this up, therefore it must be true.\"\n\n",
"How can I become enlightened?",
"Because they can be associated with the freemasons. Whom in turn can be associated with the creation of the federal reserve. \n\nWhich in turn is associated with banking, the issuance of money and interest, and the transference of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. ",
"Stupid people talking to other stupid people who have been talking to an entirely different group of stupid people.",
"The illuminati's secret base is located in the Bermuda Triangle. ",
"I in no way believe in the illuminati but I always thought they try to take over the world. Rather than just restore power to rightful owners. Whoever that may be. \n\nThat actually sounds kinda similar to somethi... Oh my god the illuminati are Godzilla. ",
"Well I hired one of the Illuminati's descendants and he is super a smart guy who is clearly a free thinker. His ancestor would have been Citizen Edmund Genet. He is also critical of the government ",
"I wonder if anyone would be interested in an AMA from a member of Masonry. ",
"People are just stupid.",
"Free thinking is dangerous and hard to manage and control. ",
"Nice try, ILLUMINATI!",
"I like how this made front page... Nice try Illuminati....",
"To paraphrase Dan Carlin, people find it comforting to believe that there is one group (or one person) pulling the strings, even if it is someone they are ideologically opposed to or don't like. There is a certain comfort to order, no matter who is in control. The truth is that the world is very complex. Those with power benefit from \"the way things are\" and anyone that tries to reform \"the way thing are\" are seen in a negative light by the former. There are no secret groups controlling everything, just people trying to better themselves and/or hold on to what they already have.",
"It's all about the fnords.",
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the bad guy.",
"According to them it was pre ordained over 1000 years ago.",
"I think people who like conspiracy theories need to identify groups who are causing the problems their conspiracy theory is trying to address.",
"The Jews are just using them as a red herring",
"Sinister name, I guess",
"Knowledge is power and power corrupts",
"Go ask Mr. Owl. ",
"There's a few people here who need to loosen their tinfoil hats just a smidge ",
"Any organization or group that does not reveal who their members are or what they stand for will be subject to rumors that will lead to conspiracies. However, I do understand why there are conspiracies as a lot of these groups were started so politicians or businessmen can talk to each other and make moves that will benefit most if not all of them.",
"This site explains most of it.\n_URL_0_",
"It's been a more recent phenomenon. With the age of information ever so ubiquitous, people have turned to the idea of the Illuminati, as a source of explanation for the madness that has ensued around the world. Think about it: we are a world full of narcissists and self-centered individuals, yet we can not absorb the belief that individuals can be capable of such unspeakable things, so they turn to groups, and thus, the idea of a behind-the-scenes villain -- the Illuminati. It's a notion that humans are built to consume. For instance, how many individuals accept the fact that there are people \"better\" than them, or worth more value. They can not. So thus, they turn to the idea of the Illuminati to explain the un-explainable. But shit has been real fishy these days: Iraq War, Crimea, and a couple of other things. ",
"You know how people see Jesus's face on toast and they think it's a sign, when really it's just the way one of billions of pieces of toast came out of a toaster? Ya, same thing. ",
"Oh my gawrd!! Did u c all dem triangles n da new Jay-Z vidya? Def ilurminanties!!",
"On the one hand, the Illuminati is basically an imagined scapegoat that works to explain the fabric and the vagaries of an unimaginably large, complex world, especially, perhaps, to the un and under educated. On the other hand, the Illuminati myth may also work productively as a way to name the shadow side of those developments which have come about since and because of the Enlightenment. For example, the idea that we are enslaved by amoral forces of power is sort of like a very cartoonish analogue of Michel Foucault's philosophy. Or IOW, I am an advocate of seeing the wisdom in what appears, at first glance, almost mystically idiotic. ",
"There are different kinds of illuminati. That historical illuminati group is only symbolic of a deep tendency in human nature: to judge others as less intelligent than us and lump them together as a tribal \"out-group.\" People who think they are smarter put themselves above others and avoid contact and communication with them, creating the *appearance* of a hierarchical trickle-down economy of intelligence. This systematic invisible social hierarchy is what runs the world. It's mostly politics (manipulating others), not intelligence or enlightenment. However, there are secrets of manipulation (mind-control).\n\nThat was the evil illuminati. The good illuminati are artists.",
"People hate liberals nowadays.\n\nBecause fuck people.",
"It is quite easy, the world needs a PC group to blame the current problems on. Since blaming the jews fell out of fashion in the 1950's, we have since moved on to the most acceptable and vague group to blame, a bunch of rich old white men who have a secret club. \n\n",
"I don't know how they be but it do.",
"Would you agree that large corporations, with the use of lobbying, have the ability to influence politicians into creating legislation that benefits those large corporations? Same thing, except some of the \"illuminati\" families have been around for a lot longer than most of these large corporations. Therefore, they've had the ability to effect policy for much longer, and over time, their wealth gets larger because of their ability to effect policy, and their increased wealth increased their ability to effect policy.\n\n",
"President JFK speech about secret societes \n\n\n_URL_0_",
"Nice try Illuminati",
"Because humans are wired to find patterns and and make correlations. It is part of the evolution that transformed us from scavenging bipeds to thinking society building people. It's also why so many of us still believe in God. Unfortunately this force is stronger in some of us. I'm looking at you Conspiratards and Evangelicals.",
"hip hop and weed.",
"I think it's mainly to do with YouTube being used as a substitute for anti-psychotic meds. ",
"People like to see conspiracy because they can't understand how complex things can happen by mistake ",
"I wonder how many of these comments are paid and owned. ",
"\"people are idiots\" and so on",
"14 year olds who think they're edgy and know better than you.",
"Sometimes people who like to think scare the people who don't like to think, and this makes people who don't like to think convince people who aren't aware of people who like to think that they are evil and want to harm them since they can't comprehend who or what they are doing.\n\nor at least that's how I was taught about this whole deal in middle school.",
"The same people who accuse the Illuminati of plotting to take over the world are probably the same people who think science is a conspiracy meant to control the masses or hurt religion.",
"Completely serious, I've only ever noticed urban street types to push the \"Illuminati are running everything from the shadows\" point of view. Is it just me who sees this or why is that?",
"You make it sound as if it is a bad thing. The illuminati isn't a devil worshipping cult, they are the awakening which is exactly what this world needs.",
"I Think i can awnser a question with a question \nIs the MLB from 1900 the same as MLB from 2000? Is the 1776 USA Government Differant then the 2014 Government? a group can change, as the people in said group change.\n ",
"You gotta blame that \"Angels and Demons\" movie for taking this whole Illuminati conspiracy shit into another level of mainstream -.-",
"Cos someone wrote it in a book and people like drama. Thank you Dan Brown. ",
"My experience is that when you hear a person talk of illuminati, you can almost be certain the person is also religious. Christians think that an evil body of men or a man will take control of the earth. Because \"free thinking\" is not exactly a good thing to Abrahamic theists, they probably think that free thinkers will take over the world with atheism/secularism and reason. All one has to do is go back to Martin Luther to hear a few of his nasty commentaries about Reason and critical thinking to know where christianity lies on the issue. Im guessing Anti-Semites have a similar belief pattern. Its also interesting to hear that a lot of American Christians are anti-socialim; a thing that Jesus most certainly would be in favor of if he was alive today. I believe they are anti-socialism because, subconciously, they want the world to fail because then the bible becomes true- yet they claim its about freedom. And Freedom cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.",
"because of youtube and the fake illuminate propaganda that musicians use to gain more publicity and success. ",
"I don't think modern use of the word illuminati is meant to refer specifically to a historical group. I always assumed it was meant to refer to the general idea that powerful people control the world from behind the curtain. ",
"Because people are stupid.",
"The Jews need a scapegoat ",
"It's a lot easier to blame a group or entity then it is to take personal responsibility. I was intrigued by it at first but after some research it all seemed like religious propaganda, adopted by lazy and entitled people to justify their lack of performance in society. ",
"Because lunatics need to justify their paranoid ramblings and use them as a boogeyman.",
"Well really ask yourself, what's the best way to keep people in line? Fear, money and physical pain are all great motivators, and the best way is to give people something they dot truly understand and telling them it is bad or evil. Also the vast majority of people are sheep and believe almost anything they hear, for example when people try to tell me how history unfolded, it is usually uneducated and distorted; I tell them to read several history books and then come and have the same conversation.",
"The real ELI5 answer: The Illuminati are supposed to have ended in the late 1700's, but there is much evidence that they persisted and were successful in infiltrating freemasonry. Apart from that, the British oligarchy systems setup by Cecil Rhodes (and the Rothschilds behind him) were actually based on the structure of the Illuminati, as Rhodes himself remarks about the \"rings within rings\". Since the British oligarchy adopted this structure and many people seek an easy scapegoat (or bury their head in hanlon's razor), many simply claim \"Illuminati\", though the structures and even symbols may have been adopted there are no verifiable strong ties between the actual Bavarian Illuminati of the 1700's and the idea of who the modern \"Illuminati\" are. Both are accused of trying to take over the world, it's simply the methods and ideals of that end which differ.",
"If only Tupac were around to explain this to us like we were five year olds",
"Just so you know, \"Illuminati\" is a blanket term for many secret societies, which did not originate with the founding fathers. Many of them are said to date back to even ancient Egypt and Greece, and in Medeival Europe. Many of the founding fathers were known to be high ranking Freemasons, which apparently had been an organization in some fashion or another for centuries previous. Now of course there isn't necessarily any concrete proof of any of this, but if there is any amount of truth to this then it would partially answer your question of how they came to be accused of trying to rule the world, that their dealings and teachings have been going on esoterically for ages, and that there are many different people in many different groups wanting different things, like possibly orchestrating a plan for a new world order. ",
"\"Free thinker\" has to be one of the most misused among \"enlightened\" internet trolls. Is it not strange how free thinkers think pretty much exactly alike? What's freer than conformity?",
"Conspiracy Theorists.\n\nThe truth is far scarier than any conspiracy they come up with.",
"The whole thing with \"Illuminati\" or \"Free Masons\" or \"Zionists\" trying to take over the world might have originated somewhere between the french revolution of 1789 and the european revolutions that succeeded from february's revolution in france 1848. \nAll those groups - no matter if progressive jewish (easy target, because they always had been one, especially in france - peak of conspiracy about them is the completely made up \"protocol of the elders of zion\" which had been written by an unknown auther as commissioned work for the russian czar) - mason or any other kind of liberal and associated with potentially dangerous mindset conspiracy was made to drive them back from influential positions.\n\nE.g.: It was pretty normal in germany (don't exactly know about all europe) even for small towns to have at least one masonic lodge. After 1848 and the german unification of 1871 and the least after 1933, they dropped to nearly zero.\n\nConspiracy theory about those groups was mainly made up by monarchs and ultra-conservative governments to repress people that were freely thinking and therefore were a threat to the mighty.",
"Because when people say the Illuminati, they don't mean the actual historical Illuminati. \n\nIt's a word they use to describe the powerful people who run the world. We don't know what they are actually called, or if they even have any sort of formalized association [ probably not] and if they don't they probably don't have a name fo themselves. You might as well call them \"the Elite rich and powerful .0001% who network really well\" but that's a bit of a mouthful. Illuminati stuck.\n\n\n\nELI5: Kind of like, you know there are people high up in the education system who make decisions about your school. A lot of the time it probably seems like a conspiracy theory and your friends idly discuss it in the plaground, like \" why are we suddenly learning about local history instead of world politics\" but you know there's someone making those calls. Everyone just calls this person \" the superintendent\" but nobody even knows his name or anything about him. \n\nAll the teachers laugh and call these conspiracy theorists whack jobs.... but its almost certain there is someone making these calls right? you would be a fool to not think there is a person or a group of people who write legislation and policy on education. \nThese people have agendas. Its probably not to make themselves richer and more powerful [ like the Illuminati] probably to just brighten young minds instil patriotism that sort of stuff. Everyone has an agenda though.",
"How does they be?! HOW?!",
"Spoiler alert: Everyone's trying to take over the world. We just get upset when we realize someone else beat us to it. ",
"The Illuminati thing is such bullshit. I guarantee you if there's a group running shit, we don't know about them. The Illuminati are like that empty office building that claims to be the headquarters of a much larger organization. Its a front, the carrot all us mules go after. ",
"Post this in /r/conspiracy for another opinion",
"listen, if you can manage to take over the world, you deserve your prize. I don't understand why you should care about \"accusations\". that's how politics and business works. Machiavelli talks about this.\n\nIf you insult the devil, he won't really care about it. Everybody knows he's the devil. sometimes you need the devil. if you don't, he's still there. that's how the world is.",
"It probably didn't help their reputation when they (and their Freemason brethren) were denounced by every pope for centuries."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://overthrowingilluminati.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/how-to-overthrow-the-illuminati/#more-33"
],
[
"http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/29/illuminati-conspiracy-part-one/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHXjO8wHsA",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnfMdM9cBp0",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8",
"http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller#Memoirs_.282003.29",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio#European_Parliament_resolution_concerning_Gladio",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hh-877s01U",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ioJGMCr-Y",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/xhZk8ronces"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fjyjgq
|
how does uv light sanitize surfaces?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fjyjgq/eli5_how_does_uv_light_sanitize_surfaces/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fkprl3u",
"fkprr31",
"fkpwuxa",
"fkpxgo9",
"fkpy963",
"fkq1hmk",
"fkq3fk9",
"fkq5t6p",
"fkq6vu5",
"fkqtrzh"
],
"score": [
26,
341,
7,
51,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"UV light has a lot of energy per photon. Enough energy to knock electrons off many common chemicals that make up living things bodies. Once that happens you have what's called a free radical, they like to react with anything they are near. It can also break bonds in chemicals necessary for life. So UV creates free radicals that go around and wreck the complex web of chemical reactions we call life. They are capable of screwing up most pathogens so badly that they just die. Every living thing can take a certain amount of UV but eventually it's just too much for their system.",
"UV light is a short enough wave length that it can penetrate into cells/viruses. When it does, it causes damage to the pathogen’s DNA. Essentially it gives pathogens supercharged cancer. It damages bacterial/viral DNA so badly that the cell can’t replicate and dies. Which is why most UV sterilization protocols are a minimum of 15 minutes, sometimes up to an hour, to make sure enough damage is done.",
"The same way it can cause us cancer - it mutates DNA.\n\nIn humans we have a LOT of DNA and a lot of cells, so if DNA gets mutated in a cell and not repaired, it’s unlikely to kill us - it’s probably not going to be in an important region of our genome and even if it is if we need to we could destroy the cell and have plenty of others to take over for it.\n\nBacteria have less DNA and are unicellular, so a mutation is more likely to be lethal",
"Not a biologist but I do want to chime in that the optimal wavelengths for disinfection are close to 270 nm and are commonly produced by a mercury-vapor lamp. That I have seen, no LED can produce this frequency. Please don't fall victim to LED sanitation devices.",
"UV light creates free radicals (they basically destabilize certain molecules) which will then go around and react with things. It may react with DNA and pull electrons off it. When it does that the DNA can physically kink or take on a conformation that makes DNA replication errors more common. When the DNA replication machinery comes around, it may a hard time replicating on a kink and may 'stutter' and insert the wrong nucleotide, which just amplifies the DNA damage in the form of mutation going on. If DNA is damaged extensively, cells may even commit suicide. That's what a sunburn is, damaged skin cells taking one for the team so they don't pass on crappy mutated genes that might turn into cancer.\n\nThat being said, it takes a lot of UV to damage something to that point and most UV sanitation wands are kind of a scam because just waving them around won't expose microbes to enough UV radiation to actually kill most of them.",
"Uv rays damages dna, your cells have ways to cope and your body has ways of getting rid of cells that can't so uv is cool for you. Most germs do not have this",
"So at my hospital we have these machines that you put touchscreen devices in to sanitize. They are slid into a mirrored box with 6 UV bulbs for about 1 minute. Is that enough to actually accomplish anything? The device automatically ends this cycle after 1 minute so we dont choose the length of time.",
"More specifically uv light causes two structures within the DNA to bond - more or less throwing a wrench in molecular machinery that reads it. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Would it be worth it to lay your groceries out in the sun before bringing them into your house if you needed to be buying essentials right now? Is that how it works? Or am I being dumb?",
"It produces DNA damage, and errors during repair due to the formation of Timine dimers, making the sequences to express wrong chains of amino acids, leading to decay of systems."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine_dimer"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1vgex1
|
how can a loud enough sound cause windows to break, avalanches, etc.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vgex1/eli5_how_can_a_loud_enough_sound_cause_windows_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cerzaqr",
"ces0q6t"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"sound waves are energy. The bounce off, and transfer energy to everything they touch. If this causes movements, ex - shifting of snow, that can easily trigger an avalanche. ",
"The air is, at all times, pushing on all objects from all sides fairly heavily. The only reason it doesn't break windows is because air is pushing equally hard from the other side, and the two balance out. Like holding up a wall by putting two big weights leaning on it from each side.\n\nYou have personal experience with this if you've flown in an airplane - the airplane is held at reduced pressure, so when they decrease the pressure in the airplane cabin your ears will hurt. That's because the air *inside* your ears is at higher pressure than the air *outside* your ears, so your eardrums are being pushed outwards overall. That's why it hurts, at least until your ears \"pop\" and the pressure equalizes.\n\nA sound wave is basically a wave of air traveling at different pressure from normal. Like a slinky - it compresses, pushes onwards, and expands. Consider drums - someone hits the top of the drum, which causes it to bend down and back up again. While bending down, air is pulled in (and you get lower pressure); when it moves back up, the air is pushed out and you get higher pressure. That's a sound wave, and you'll hear the drum when it reaches you.\n\nThese differences in pressure from typical sounds can be small but significant. A jet engine, for example, causes a variation of about 4 pounds per square foot (if you had a board 1 foot on a side and held it up near a jet engine, it would alternately be pushed then pulled with 4 pounds of force).\n\n*Normally*, this isn't a huge deal. A typical sound wave alternates from highest to lowest pressure and back anywhere from 30 to 30 thousand times per second - which means as soon as something starts to get pushed out of position by the high-pressure peak, it is pulled back into position by the low-pressure trough. In the \"holding up a wall\" analogy I made above, this would be like keeping a wall up by alternately pushing on the front than the back very, very quickly so it never actually tips over.\n\n*However*, this isn't the whole story. Stuff tends to settle into the most stable position. Think of a swingset. If you push on the swing, it will move a little, but then it moves back thanks to gravity pushing it back towards the most stable position. If you step out of the way after that one push, it's now swinging gently back and forth and over time will slow down until it stops in the middle again. But if instead every time it reaches a peak you push gently in the other direction, it will keep swinging further with each pass. Eventually, it may swing so far that the ropes aren't designed to take the stress and it breaks off.\n\nGlass and sound waves are the same idea. If you send sound waves at an appropriate timing between high and low peaks (for common glasses, that's a sound note about 4 octaves above middle A), each \"push\" and \"pull\" from the sound wave adds on to the vibration the glass is already undergoing until it shatters.\n\nAvalanches are a different case. They don't usually come from normal sounds. More common causes are physical movement on top of the snow (like skiing), movement of the earth (minor earthquakes), and explosions (which creates an *absurdly* high pressure wave, far greater than you get from normal noises humans make). That is not as much about repeated pushes and pulls causing it to vibrate until it shakes loose, as just hitting the ground with one huge blast of air (like hitting it with a giant sledgehammer) and seeing what shakes loose from that one push. In the swingset analogy, that's running a freight train into the swing and watching it get ripped off the swingset all at once."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3a0mlr
|
how is the cost of medical procedures, surgeries, treatment etc calculated by a hospital? do they have fixed prices for a different treatments? how does it work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3a0mlr/eli5_how_is_the_cost_of_medical_procedures/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs86j7q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I watched a news report about pricing for a couple of different surgeries between a bunch of different hospitals. \n\nI can't remember the operation names, but there was something like an 80k cosy difference between the cheapest hospital and the most expensive for a particular surgery. \n\nThe news report was focused on the pricing disparities for the exact same surgical procedure and called them out on it. \n\nI am a New Zealander, so I don't truly grasp USA medicinal practices etc, however these price differences were so large it could be easily believed that the greediest hospitals deliberately overprice just for financial gain. This is diabolical if true"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
700qz3
|
why is the by product of respiration co2 contains an oxygen molecule which is the one we inhale?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/700qz3/eli5why_is_the_by_product_of_respiration_co2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmzhxbq",
"dmzj6li"
],
"score": [
11,
7
],
"text": [
"Oxygen isn't the fuel, it's the *oxidizer*. You need the O^2 in the air you breath in order to burn sugar and fat for cellular energy, and the waste product of burning sugar is carbon dioxide and H2O. The carbon from the fuel has to go somewhere, and we breath it out as CO2.",
"It's like how you need soap to wash the dishes, but you to wash away the grease, you need to wash away the soap as well. Without soap, you can't get the grease off, but when you apply soap, the grease gets stuck on the soap, and you can't use that greasy soap anymore."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
g0himw
|
why are american stocks rising when unemployment rates are exploding?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g0himw/eli5_why_are_american_stocks_rising_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fn9nb8e",
"fn9nqqf",
"fn9nsq7",
"fn9o06m",
"fn9s7hl",
"fn9v5oc"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
3,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You remember when the market fell nearly 40% when there were a couple dozen cases and before lockdowns were implemented?\n\nThat was the market seeing the writing on the wall and pricing in the future losses. It was pricing in the chance that no stimulus was passed and that the fed wouldn't be quick to act.\n\nThe gains in recent days (still 20% off the peak) reflects the market not thinking things are as bad as they may have been (i.e. the selloff overshot). \n\nOf course, the market may be wrong now and may very well drop again. My point is that the market isn't rising on bad employment numbers anymore than it was falling because a couple dozen people had the virus (which was the situation when it fell precipitously). The market attempts to lead economic indicators, not follow them.",
"Because profits is more important than people, and the federal reserve is printing money and is artificially creating value. With the initial drop, the logic is that now all that was priced in, thus increasing. However, what is baffling, compared to fundamentals of the market is that whenever bad news comes out about a company (i.e. Boeing, American Airlines, United and Delta), their stocks start climbing. If that doesn't set a red flag at the SEC, I don't know what should.",
"Stocks are about perception. The perception is that those unemployment numbers are eventually going to drop back down.",
"Because the stock market has *absolutely NOTHING* to do with employment rates or even the health of the economy.\n\nThe stock market is about rich people and investment funds (lots of poorer people giving their money to rich people to \"invest\" for them to make more money than they could on their own) placing bets on whether particular companies are going to be more or less valuable over time.",
"The other comments have addressed some of the points, I doubt anyone here is an expert though. Economics Explained (a real economist) has put out a video recently on this exact topic!\n\n_URL_0_",
"Basically nearly all the stocks fell at the start of the outbreak, however since all companies are virtually doing equally bad as each other in the same field no one company has a competitive advantage over the other so the values are returning to near normal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/FFROyTMgr-s"
],
[]
] |
||
3p9h9e
|
why don't we use tvs as computer monitors?
|
They're generally way less expensive and are a ton bigger.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p9h9e/eli5_why_dont_we_use_tvs_as_computer_monitors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw4azvl",
"cw4b5js",
"cw4b7j2"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They're bigger, but a 32\" HD TV still has the same resolution as a smaller 1920x1080 monitor. You could use one as a monitor, but you'll just be making everything on the screen bigger rather than fitting more on the screen. Using a 4K TV as a monitor might be more interesting, but they're not cheap.",
"A few other reasons. \n- TVs often have aerials and scart sockets (useless for pc use). \n- Inbuilt speakers which are often not needed for PCs. \n\nThese add unnecessary weight, size and cost. Take all the bells and whistles away and you get a cheaper more compact monitor. \n\nThat said, nothing stops anyone from having one. Many people use small media PCs coupled with their TV as a media player for music and streaming.",
"They are bigger, but they have far fewer pixels which makes them inferior. To have a TV with the resolution of a monitor you would need to buy the very very top end TVs and those are not way less expensive, those cost thousands upon thousands of dollars. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
mc3q5
|
why flat maps of the earth are so hard to do?
|
My understanding is that the Mercator projection is decent along the equator but gets more and more distorted towards the poles, which is why Greenland looks like it's friggin' huge.
In my five-year-old brain, I think this is because when you try to "unroll" a globe into a cylinder, the middle gets stretched less.
So how come we can't do the same thing as the Mercator projection, but using a "virtual equator," we pretend that, say, the North Pole is on the "equator" running 0 degrees and 180 degrees longtitude, that would give us a more accurate view of Antarctica, for instance, right, while other things would be distorted instead.
So instead do several Mercator-style projections based on different "equators" and then combine the most accurate parts from each one into one map.
I assume this is a stupid idea, but can someone explain it to me?
I just don't get saying "that map is inaccurate, Greenland isn't really that big in relation to other places," if we know that, shrink it down so it looks right!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mc3q5/eli5_why_flat_maps_of_the_earth_are_so_hard_to_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2zqbms",
"c2zr3lu",
"c2zqbms",
"c2zr3lu"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the earth isn't flat.\n\nTake an orange, and peel it so that you have one big flat piece. That's the exact same problem.",
"The problem is that the earth is a sphere, while a rectangular map can make a cylinder, not a sphere. The double curvature of the sphere is the problem for a 2D rendition.\n\nIf you want to make a map of the earth, you have to sacrifice something. Depending on what you choose to sacrifice, you'll get a different map.\n\nThe Mercator projection is a map that is distorted around the poles, but it preserves shapes and angles, which is very useful for navigation.\n\nThe [Mollweide projection](_URL_2_) is a map that preserves surface: the poles are single points and the equator is the widest point. As a result, everything is tilted, but at least they have the correct area, and you can see that Greenland is not as big as Africa, unlike what the Mercator projection would suggest.\n\nThe [Goode Homosline projection](_URL_1_) is basically the same as the previous one, except that there are cuts in it so that everything isn't tilted so much, though there's still some tilting.\n\nEtc...\n\nThe solution you propose (combining the \"good\" parts of several Mercator projections) is a nice idea but you wouldn't be able to combine all the parts in a rectangle or even a convex shape. You would get something that resembles the [Dymaxion map](_URL_0_), which has everything looking very close to reality, both in shapes and in relative sizes, but you have so many cuts that it's hard to visualize how the edges connect.\n",
"Because the earth isn't flat.\n\nTake an orange, and peel it so that you have one big flat piece. That's the exact same problem.",
"The problem is that the earth is a sphere, while a rectangular map can make a cylinder, not a sphere. The double curvature of the sphere is the problem for a 2D rendition.\n\nIf you want to make a map of the earth, you have to sacrifice something. Depending on what you choose to sacrifice, you'll get a different map.\n\nThe Mercator projection is a map that is distorted around the poles, but it preserves shapes and angles, which is very useful for navigation.\n\nThe [Mollweide projection](_URL_2_) is a map that preserves surface: the poles are single points and the equator is the widest point. As a result, everything is tilted, but at least they have the correct area, and you can see that Greenland is not as big as Africa, unlike what the Mercator projection would suggest.\n\nThe [Goode Homosline projection](_URL_1_) is basically the same as the previous one, except that there are cuts in it so that everything isn't tilted so much, though there's still some tilting.\n\nEtc...\n\nThe solution you propose (combining the \"good\" parts of several Mercator projections) is a nice idea but you wouldn't be able to combine all the parts in a rectangle or even a convex shape. You would get something that resembles the [Dymaxion map](_URL_0_), which has everything looking very close to reality, both in shapes and in relative sizes, but you have so many cuts that it's hard to visualize how the edges connect.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goode_homolosine_projection",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goode_homolosine_projection",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection"
]
] |
|
3i9vkx
|
how would astronauts aboard the iss escape of there was a disaster onboard?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i9vkx/eli5_how_would_astronauts_aboard_the_iss_escape/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuek6tz",
"cuerr3h"
],
"score": [
12,
8
],
"text": [
"They usually keep a Soyuz craft around for return to Earth, and this can be used in case of emergency. For a minor emergency they can stay aboard the ISS, sealing damaged areas, using spacesuits for a limited time if needed.",
"There are always enough Soyuz craft docked to the station to evacuate the entire crew. Back when there were only three people aboard at a time, there was only one docked, but when the station was equipped to hold six astronauts, the number of Soyuz docked increased to two."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5tlpe4
|
how can motorcycles hit and maintain ~10,000 rpm's, whereas my 6 speed car feels like it's about to fall apart at 7500?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tlpe4/eli5_how_can_motorcycles_hit_and_maintain_10000/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddnegbi",
"ddneiar",
"ddnfaj9",
"ddnmcpb",
"ddntmy7"
],
"score": [
3,
37,
40,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Smaller engines have shorter piston strokes, essentially. If you've ever watched a Formula 1 race, you've observed that the cars have a high pitched whine, like motorcycles, despite being 8 or 10 cylinder engines. Same principle at work. ",
"General rule is basically: longer the cylinder stroke is, slower the max rpm. Longer cylinder stroke means cylinder moves more per revolution compared to shorter stroke. Also forces and accelerations endured by cylinder are higher. That is why car engines have usually lower max rpm than a motorcycle.\n\nShip engines run with much lower rpm and rc car engine can run over 20000rpm.",
"Stroke length - the distance from the bottom on the cylinder to the top- plays a huge part of this.\nThe shorter the distance the less speed the piston has to have and the less rotational G force applied to the piston.\n80's indy cars had over bore engines that could turn over 18k rpm. Meaning the diameter of the piston is most larger than the stroke of the crank. (Rod length that connects the two makes no difference in piston speed, but on side load it does. Totally different subject)\n\nStroke is torque, rpm is horsepower. \nIndy cars going around a track don't need much torque because horsepower carries them around a track more efficiently.\n\nA street car uses torque to take off from a stop and gain better fuel economy.\n\nA motorcycle doesn't have the wieght disadvantages a car has. So they don't need the tq a car has.\nIf you need any more technical data and math to go with this I can supply it.",
"I like to use the analogy of a twig. Take a long twig and apply a force to each end in compression. The twig will bow the break. However take a twig the is shorter and it will require more force to break. The same logic applies to the connecting rods in the cylinders of the motor. Motorcycles tend to have short strokes. My FZ-1 has 1000cc of displacement but only travels 58mm or 2.28in. That is a pretty small stroke and keeps bikes connecting rods acting like the short twig.",
"If you looked at the *actual speed* the parts inside the engine are traveling and also the acceleration as they change direction, they may be *relatively* similar. Because the smaller engine parts travel shorter distances each cycle, they are (potentially) not moving faster in absolute terms.\n\nA motorcycle engine may be built to withstand higher forces for performance reasons but in short, it actually doesn't need to be."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7cdfd7
|
why does asmr sooth people?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7cdfd7/eli5_why_does_asmr_sooth_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpp5aqn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"This question is impossible to answer and anyone who says otherwise is guessing at best. ASMR is not yet studied well enough because there aren't ways to reliably measure it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2mwpsx
|
why is it that when i come inside from being in a cold bright place (shoveling outside), and everything has a green/ pink hue to it, depending on how dark it is in that room?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mwpsx/eli5why_is_it_that_when_i_come_inside_from_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm8bhtp"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In your retina, the light sensing part lining the back of the eye, there are three types of cones which are the color sensing cells known as photoreceptors. The three types of cones are tuned to sense blue, green, and red.\n\nWhen you're in the snow, light from the sun consisting of all colors (white light) hits the snow and gets scattered. Snow (solid water) acts as a filter for red and green light which is why deep water or a large solid glacier appear blue. Thus, the snow reflects more blue color than red or green.\n\nDue to the abundance of blue, your blue cones in your eye get more saturated than the green or red ones. When you go back indoors where there is not as much blue light, it takes time for your blue cones to recover while your red and green cones are working just fine. Thus, your brain intercepts normal signal from red and green but limited signal from blue so everything appears more green/red.\n\nThis is also why ski goggles are red/orange because they block out the blue \"glare\" caused by reflection off the snow. When you remove those goggles, everything appears strongly blue.\n\nA similar thing occurs when you close your eyes in a bright environment. Even with your eyes closed, red light penetrates through your eyelid so your red cones get saturated. When you open up your eyes again, everything appears overly blue/green."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
n5g56
|
the october revolution
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n5g56/eli5_the_october_revolution/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c36f6z2",
"c36f6z2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Wikipedia. Use it.",
"Wikipedia. Use it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1qt1u0
|
why don't car manufacturers make all cars as visually appealing as ferrari's or lamborghini's?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qt1u0/eli5why_dont_car_manufacturers_make_all_cars_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdg61ta",
"cdg6lct",
"cdg6wtg",
"cdg73f3",
"cdg7670",
"cdg7eg3",
"cdg7k6o",
"cdg7mt3",
"cdg7n0b",
"cdg7s56",
"cdg7x6o",
"cdg7x9o",
"cdg7xtp",
"cdg84ou",
"cdg84sv",
"cdg865v",
"cdg88gi",
"cdg8d47",
"cdg8gja",
"cdg8h2c",
"cdg8jq9",
"cdg8lsh",
"cdg981c",
"cdg9o09",
"cdg9wug",
"cdg9xqz",
"cdga0lc",
"cdga3br",
"cdga5gx",
"cdga898",
"cdgac47",
"cdgajlr",
"cdgb0c8",
"cdgbhi4",
"cdgbjog",
"cdgbwcf",
"cdgbzqt",
"cdgc7qd",
"cdgce1b",
"cdgcl9q",
"cdgcp46",
"cdgcryt",
"cdgd5zx",
"cdgd8o5",
"cdgdlfj",
"cdgdrkb",
"cdgdxuz",
"cdge3o6",
"cdge3x7",
"cdgek5l",
"cdgemr6",
"cdgerfz",
"cdgetts",
"cdgfae1",
"cdgfbxo",
"cdgfo71",
"cdgg7w2",
"cdggn2r",
"cdghwz8",
"cdgif28",
"cdgj5xg",
"cdgj9s6",
"cdgjqgw",
"cdgk1us",
"cdgkl59",
"cdgkziq",
"cdgmu8f",
"cdgof1v",
"cdgrfa4",
"cdgrpk2",
"cdgvibt"
],
"score": [
153,
2,
8,
2928,
28,
3,
8,
8,
2,
6,
82,
2,
11,
2,
2,
2,
6,
361,
2,
2,
8,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
123,
6,
18,
5,
7,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3,
8,
19,
15,
4,
2,
2,
2,
8,
3,
2,
3,
3,
5,
6,
3,
2,
8,
3,
2,
3,
7,
3,
5,
2,
5,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of sacrifices that go into designing cars like a Ferrari or Lamborghini. \n\nFor one, all that body styling comes at the cost of being much much smaller on the inside. Not so great for a 4-door sedan or a minivan.",
"that's all about your opinion of what a good car looks like, most, not all sports cars aesthetics comes after function. personally id rather be driving an older classic then a high end sports car like a ferrari or lambo. \nalso to do with the manufacturing of the car, its easier for the plant to churn out a simpler styled car and make more of a profit on the overhead, a lot of the high end sports cars are all put together all by humans not like some of the robots that they have in place in the toyota or other factorys. \nid put it down to logistics and profit, there is a reason there that expensive. \n",
"One factor is that higher end cars are usually designed with higher tolerances, thinker paint, etc. Normal car manufactures (Honda, Jetta, VW) they make cars with middle and lower class people in mind, trying to keep cost down and reliability high. An incredible amount of time and energy goes into making cars visually appealing. Personally, I think imports (American here) are visually appealing. ",
"There's a lot of reasons but I'll try to come up with a shorter list - \n\n1.) form follows function. There's no way to make a car that looks like an exotic sports car that can still haul 5+ passengers and carry lots of cargo.\n\n2.) platform sharing. many vehicles in production today share platforms, engineering, chassis designs, etc with other models. Ferrari's and Lamborghinis have bespoke chassis (although yes the Gallardo does share it's platform with the also exotic Audi R8). Carmakers want to design a platform that is as versatile as possible and able to used in as many different vehicles. Toyota uses the same design architecture (in various forms) to underpine the Camry, Highlander, Avalon, Venza, Lexus ES, and Lexus RX. Nissan is unique in having designed a platform that can be used on everything from a sports car (370z) to a SUV (Infiniti FX) to a large luxury sedan (Infiniti M). Then again, the 370z does not quite have the same stance as a purebred sports car like an S2000 or Boxster, and the FX is also just about the most car like SUV you'll find. When you compare the Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro, one key reason the Mustang is several hundred pounds lighter is the Camaro and Challenger are essentially two door sedans (the Camaro sharing it's platform with the late lamented Pontiac G8 and the Challenger with the Charger), so they are heavier, whereas the Mustang does not and is designed to be a sports coupe. Common architectures/platforms/chassis designs require compromise, and that's not something Ferrari or Lamborghini have to really do.\n\n3.) not everyone likes the look. for some people, their car is no different than their washing machine - it's an appliance. they want something bland and simple that gets the job done. making a bland looking car is also the least offensive and polarizing, and therefore more likely to have the broadest appeal. People are far more likely to buy a car who's styling has no effect on them than one that they find ugly.\n\n4.) a carmaker may have it's own design language that it is trying to convey. A Mercedes or a BMW have their own distinct looks that identify the brand, and styling one of their cars to look like a Ferrari or Lamborghini wouldn't look right. Brand identity is something very important to many carmakers, and they try hard to make their cars recognizably theres. Look at the grill Ford is now putting on all their cars, or Cadillacs vertical headlights and tailights. Same goes for muscle cars like Camaros, Challengers, and Mustangs. They just wouldn't look right any other way.",
"Sometimes complex bodywork is expensive. Doubly so for headlights. That said, it's mostly because automakers just want mass appeal, and bland cars are the least polarizing and often the simplest to construct.",
"Because if they did, the Wal-Mart parking lot just wouldn't be the same.",
"because not everyone wants to drive a car that screams \"HEY LOOK AT ME!\"",
"I drive a Kia Borrego and it completely invalidates your question.\n\nI would not look at a picture unless you are ready to have your fucking mind **blown.**",
"I have been wondering this for as long as I can remember. This is so awesome you asked this. I am so happy you did. Thank you everyone that answered. Ah this is amazing haha.",
"Because artistic car design requires a rare combination of artistic vision, engineers who support it, business management who appreciate, and a willingness to be ahead of what public expects and is comfortable with. It's the same reason we see a lot if ugly buildings and why major studio films grow increasingly formulaic and unoriginal: they embrace what the public wants today rather that aspirating to what the public can learn to appreciate with artistic leadership. ",
"What make sport cars look so \"sporty\" are those distinct bodylines, and making car body with distinct bodyline like most sport cars cost a lot in mass production.\n\nFirst, you should have a general idea that most body parts are manufactured by steel sheet stamping and spot welding process. You get flat steel sheets, then you use press/stamp dies to manipulate the shape to be what you want. You might want to see some Youtube videos about stamping process for more understanding.\n\nAfter you get the general idea of the manufacturing process, especially stamping, you should be aware that making smooth steel sheet surface with stamping is a lot easier than making sharp-angled surface. (Imagine when you wrap a sheet of paper around water bottle, and you warp another sheet around a rectangular box. The one you wrapped around water bottle tends to form the shape of a bottle much easier than the one around the box.) You will need to put more effort in manufacturing process e.g. increasing stamping speed, increasing die size, or add restriking process to make sure that parts come out as they're supposed to be - the process will be much more complicated. Every extra effort in manufacturing costs money, so speaking from a business standpoint, it might be better idea to trade off visual appeal to manufacturing cost and effort. It might be worth mentioning that if the production process is much more complex, it will be difficult to do quality control and ensure acceptable defective parts ratio.\n\nApart from manufacturing cost, there is maintenance cost of stamping die. All stamping dies wear off after certain usage cyle, but they tend to wear off a lot faster if body parts are more angled (look more \"sporty\"). Production die maintenance is a huge thing and costs a LOT, not to mention that you need to stop production line and lose productivity during die maintenance time.\n\nTL:DR \nMaking cars look \"sporty\" cost a lot more in production and production tooling maintenance, since the process will be so complicated. Hence most auto makers are willing to trade off visual appeal to make cars cheaper to produce.\n\nSorry for my English.\n\n\n\n",
"It's marketing. There are certain criteria consumers consider more important than others. When purchasing an automobile many people consider price, fuel-efficiency, and safety over aesthetics. When making important purchases these factors weigh heavily on the consideration of choices (and the manufacturers know this), so there is no need to waste cost in R & D, materials, and hefty salaries on inconsequential attributes.\n\nGiven, there are niche markets, which companies such as Bugatti, Lamborghini, and other super-high end products are competing - they never reach any economy of scale and the price is through the roof. They may only make a limited amount of units, and realize a profit, but there are only so many consumers in this market, and barriers to entry are extreme. Huge investment, with a ton a red tape to only hope to sell a few units just doesn't make much business sense.\n\n*edit: price is the consumer's consideration, not cost - that is the manufacturer's consideration",
"The companies that make the expensive sports cars also make the cheaper cars. If they made the cheap cars as nice as the expensive ones, people would be more likely to buy the cheap ones.",
"An aside question: Why don't they make hybrids more appealing? I mean, I might be bias that the Prius and Ford Edge are not appealing, but they're the most futuristic/cutting edge technological advances in the vehicle industry! IMO regular cars make the Prius look like a :X but in all seriousness, I think they can make hybrids look a lot better.",
"Strength and cost of materials tend to be a big factor. \n\nWhen you create certain angles and lines that look cool, their ability to bear load and maintain rigidity can sometimes be compromised (a great example is the amount of strengthening convertible versions of the same car often require to maintain strength and stability). Hence stronger alloys and materials are often required. \n\nIf you have massive rims (which often makes cars look way cooler), you also generally have a rougher ride, and wider wheels mean far more expensive tyres unfortunately.)\n\nGlass sections that are fairly unique tend to cost more too. \n\nHaving said all that, I tend to think it is possible to build cooler looking cars at a lot less expense than the high end marques, but there is probably a marketing and price segmentation issue to it as well - i.e. we can sell a cool looking car for more if it is well differentiated from run of the mill cars, so because we can, we will. I think with the introduction of the Toyota 86 / Subaru BRZ we may see a bit more mainstream competition in this area for cool looking cars at sub-elite performance for reasonable costs for the simple reason that they are selling.\n\n\n",
"It's kind of like the Syndrome Effect- If everyone has a sexy-looking car, then nobody has a sexy-looking car. \n\nThink about it, the more exotic-style cars there are on the road, the less exotic they appear because they are more common. Some people don't want to buy a car that is common. That would only make the buyer fit in, rather than stand out.\n\nEdit: Clarification ",
"Cause beauty is in the eye of the beholder.\n\nYou may find a Ferrari or Lambo beautiful but you then also have those that think they're ugly and prefer Koenigseggs, Zondas or SLS AMGs.\n\nWhich do you prefer to game on? PS3 , Xbox, Laptop or Desktop?",
"I think the OP is asking why a manufacturer doesn't just create a great fucking looking car without the expensive engine and components. Not - why doesn't Toyota Camry look like a Ferrari. c'mon, get with the program guys. \n\n",
"Manufacturers need to differentiate between their own models. If every car looked like Ferraris and lambos, then I think the car world would be a pretty dull place to be. \n\n\nAlso, function over form. While Ferraris are fast, they are small and very impracticable. \n\n\nAlso, not everyone has exquisite Italian taste",
"I think one reason is that since high-end sports cars have such a distinct look, that if you were to buy a cheap, GM version it would just be an obvious knock-off and you'd be ridiculed as a wanna-be. A poser.\n\nOn the other hand, more conventional cars have definitely copied their looks from the higher-end European sedans and coupes. Look at all the relatively inexpensive cars these days that essentially look very similar to Audis and BMWs.",
"While I fear this isn't the direct answer the OP was looking for I think you need to ask \"What about Ferraris and Lambos are intrinsically appealing?\"\n\nThe reality is that I think people look at the these car's design features and find them appealing because they are associated with expensive and rare supercars. I don't believe the human brain is hard wired to find any one type of design naturally appealing. \n\nIf every car in the world looked like a 599 then the one yaris mixed in would be the appealing option. \n\nTLDR: Ferraris are appealing because they are ferraris.\n\n",
"I think Top Gear showed the reasons best in their [French Thrash](_URL_0_) road trip. \n\nThe design of these cars, whilst undeniably good looking, doesn't really cope well with everything the public roads can throw at it.",
"It's because Lambos and Ferrari's are not made for families or regular people who go to regular places. Super cars are usually really low to the ground, small interior space, loud cabin noise from ground and engine also pose major issues for people who drive in snow, have kids or just want a comfortable ride. You can't fit much cargo in a Lamborghini and the drive is said to be generally uncomfortable. I rode in a Gallardo once and it was great for sure, but the engine droned like a bitch, and the ride got a little annoying because I could feel every bump in the road. Lamborghinis are made for a different reason than Honda Civics are, and for different people. ",
"I drive a 1996 white GMC Sonoma. I literally can't be pulled over. ",
"1993 Toyota MR2 was my poor man's Ferrari and I loved it!",
"If every car looks exotic, suddenly the \"exotic\" look is too common and just becomes cheap and tacky.",
"Whoa... The top comments are great, and i feel like there is a lot of agreement in this thread --a lot of points with validity to them-- but there is a really simple explanation that I cannot find speed reading all of this stuff...\n\nEngine packaging. An engineer could go on for an hour about why it is so expensive to build a car with a really low-slung engine. From the cylinder arrangement of the engine itself, to clearances for *everything else* as a consequence of mounting it low, it's very expensive to squeeze an engine into a low-profile car. \n\nThat's what we're really talking about here when we say Ferrari or lambo; we're talking about a hood as low as your coffee table. Not putting it under a hood, you say? The engine is in the rear? Wow, now you're really talking expensive design (you might gain clearance, but not for free). \n\nThe overall cost for getting that low-slung look puts a car into the next price tier, at which point you've got a car begging for justification by way of more luxury or power. If you compromise on either (e.g. build something under 50k), **you just built an MR-2 or S2000**, which I personally adore, but won't sell. \n\nTl;dr: It's cheap to build a tall engine and everything that goes with it, while lowering the hood (especially when adding power) increases cost exponentially. Also, if it isn't obvious, low = pretty.\n\nEdit: Below you'll find my feeble and verbose attempt to elaborate on my assertions, if you're interested.",
"Some do. Chrysler 300 looks like a Rolls Royce Phantom. Ford Fusion looks like an Aston Martin. Until a Phantom or an Aston Martin rolls up.\n",
"Some try, to an extent. Look at what Ford did with the Fusion, for example. A face borrowed from Aston-Martin, an ass borrowed from Maserati.\n\nThere are practical reasons, as well. The body-shape of a Ferrari is dictated by high-speed aerodynamics, while the body-shape of a Chevy SUV is going to be dictated by passenger space and cargo room. But that doesn't answer the question entirely.\n\nThe more interesting question, I think, is do the sorts of people who buy Chevys and Toyotas actually *want* a \"stunning\" car like a Ferrari? I don't think they do.\n\nIt's also important to point out that Pininfarina, the company that is actually responsible for the design of all the beautiful Ferraris you see, has also designed a number of cars for other companies, including coupes and sedans for some comparatively dull brands. See this list: _URL_0_\n\nBeing good designers, they're accommodating different needs with different designs. So even the guys who make the beautiful Maserati GranTurismo and Ferrari 458 Italia, arguably two of the most beautiful cars ever made, also make cars like the Hyundai Matrix and the Ford Focus. So what gives?\n\nThere are many many factors, but ultimately I think the answer to your question is that most motorists don't want to stand out. Aesthetics are, of course, important. They would rather have a car that looks good (not outstanding, mind you, but good), but that probably falls behind the number of cup-holders in their priority list.\n\nRemember that \"beauty\" tends to be opinionated as well. When you set out to make something beautiful you are inevitably going to alienate people (in fact, you will probably alienate more people than you attract, although those you attract will be extremely loyal), and with your average Chevy the whole point is to appeal to as broad a demographic as possible. Think McDonald's. It's not the best burger joint in town, not by a long shot, but it thrives because it appeals *just enough* to everyone without ever daring to alienate the masses by trying to introduce any flavor that isn't your basic sweet, salty, or meaty. It thrives precisely because it's average.\n\nThere are some very complicated reasons for why this works that have to do with how mass-marketing worked in the past, and we're certainly witnessing a sea change in this area thanks to the Internet and the decline of radio and television, but that's a huge topic that is way too deep and tangential to cover here.\n\nI also believe, and I realize this is a difficult statement to back up, that there is less appreciation for design and beauty in our society than there once was. We have become very accustomed to mediocrity, comfortable even, simply because it's cheap. Look at the food we eat (frozen dinners, fast food, microwaved whatever), the buildings we live and work in, and, to your point, the cars we drive. Compare American cars in particular to those made just forty years ago. American cars used to be things of beauty. I don't think anyone considers a 90's-era Ford Taurus or even a Cadillac to be on par with a Ford from decades past.\n\nBecause when something is a major investment things like aesthetics start to matter, but when they're cheap then suddenly the cheapness is the major factor and factors like aesthetics become, well, a luxury.\n\nI've worked in design for ten years and this is definitely the trend. When people are looking for a cheap product they rarely consider aesthetics. It's more about the quantitative features and \"bang-for-your-buck\". \"Beauty\" is considered an excess, if not downright wasteful.\n\nI have a difficult time relating to this mentality, myself. I mean, if I'm going to spend thousands of hours of my life inside of something, I want it to be something that pleases me, and beautiful things are pleasant to me.\n\n**TL;DR:** Think McDonald's, not the 5-star steak house. Both companies do well, but only one has the capability of serving billions of people. People want cheap and believe it or not they want ordinary. Beauty is opinionated, and therefore it's specialized, so a company like Chevy that's interested in appealing to as broad a demographic as possible can't take too many aesthetic risks. They would rather produce something mildly appealing to everyone, not strongly appealing to just one single base. Think national politics.",
"Hyundai tried with the Veloster...and now every time I have to do body work on one with all those fucking body lines and curves I want to punch myself in the dick.",
"Not everyone thinks Farrari's or Lamborghini's are visually appealing.",
"Because it really isn't easy to design a beautiful car. \n\nThen, to actually follow the designs you need to spend a lot of money. So generally design falls behind common sense which makes this edge less rounded, that detail not necessary etc. Look at the design sketches for common cars and you'll see they're pretty awesome. \n\nFinally, pretty cars are usually not that practical. Low suspension means speed bumps are effectively walls. Long sleek body? A bitch to park. Dynamic windshield? Can't see shit. Etc. \n",
"That would be gaudy as hell.",
"Nissan GTR is one of my favorite cars. I couldn't believe it was a Nissian when I first saw it. I think I'd prefer one over a Lamborghini. ",
"i thought it would have been because sports carts like a ferrari are really bad at using space",
"If you have ever ridden in a Ferrari down a normal city street, you'd understand immediately why they don't.",
"Ferrari and Lamborghini aren't that appealing.",
"because it costs money to shape panels that way, takes up more space, takes more time in design and so costs MORE MONEY. economy cars are supposed to be cheap and that takes away from money better spent on the engine, drivetrain, suspension , etc.\n\nYou sited lambos, porches, ferraris, etc but realistically cars are waaayy sportier looking than they were even 20 years ago.\n Its been done a few times, like the fiero, and everyone criticizes it for being a slow turd when it looks fast.\n The FRS is a good modern day example.\n\nNot saying anything about ford blatant Aston copy...\n\n",
"Aerodynamics and visual productions of models of cars takes millions of dollars in development that a lot of small manufacturers don't have to spend.\n\nAlso most people automatically assume a ferrari is beautiful without seeing it... Its mostly the name",
"I am in the market for a visually appealing, decently-engined and affordable car. \n \n \n\nCurrently, the low-tier offering (up to 15 000€) of every major manufacturer available in Europe either looks like utter bio-shit or comes with a 60hp engine. You want a decent engine? That'll be another 10 thousand. \n \n \nWhy can't we have [**nice things**](_URL_0_)?",
"why isn't there a massive amount of futuristic technology inside cars? I feel like there has hardly been any innovation at all there. They are just now integrating phones and stuff ",
"Those cars aren't visually appealing to everyone. ",
"If all cars looked amazing, then cheap cars would be as appealing as expensive cars and their profit margins would crash. They create less attractive cars as a way to create demand for their more attractive cars. A Lexus looks better than the Camry because they make more money on the Lexus. It creates want. They create 20 options, and the one that makes them the most money is the one they know you want the most. It creates a tiered demand. By giving you ugly options, you are willing to pay more for less ugly. This strategy is employed in other businesses too. Unfortunately, the one I know best is brothels: sir, here are your options. We know you drove all the way out here and you don't want to leave without something. So here is your basement price of $100. Take Isabel. Or, if you'd like to spend a little more you can take foxy for $175. Or, if you'd like to really get your money's worth, heather for $350. They all perform the same function. ",
"\"If everyone were a superhero, then there would be no superhero.\" ",
"It's a good thing they don't because people like me who don't think Ferraris and Lamborghinis are attractive wouldn't want to own them. That shit is WAY too over the top for me, I don't like them at all. If I had that kind of money I'd much rather buy a nice BMW or Jaguar, etc.",
"Car body design is based on a lot of things. Target market, Performance, Fuel consumption. High performance cars are designed aerodynamically to have the least amount of drag which helps it go faster. needless to say achieving this not cheap at all, you need expensive wind tunnels and advanced software.\n\nAlso the designs of the body is so complex it would cost and absolute fortune to create the curves and details and flushness that expensive sports care have. Basically cheap cars would not exist any more\n\nIf you literally mean why can you not make all cars looks like Ferrari and Lambos, obviously because of legal issues.\n\n",
"They want their vehicles to be the cheapest, most efficient vehicles. ",
"As a person who owned close to 30 different cars in my 22 or so years of driving, I left American cars after my 2nd one - infamous and legendary Camaro with Chevy celebrity 2.8L engine that ~~could~~ couldn't. Since then, I had Acura Integra, Legend, 3.5TL, RSX TypeS, TL TypeS. With the exception of Integra and RSX, don't miss any of them. But all had insane resale value and with the exception of a few failed relays and absolutely horrific manual tranny in TL TypeS, all were reliable and fun. \n\nLexus G300 when it first came out was my most favorite ride... But Lexus now became Japanese Buick. \n\n\nBMW 328 was the biggest piece of unreliable shit I ever had the displeasure of owning and after suing and winning, I swore to stay away from German cars. Now, that - talk about outrageous price to value disparity. Unreliable, overpriced, insanely expensive to keep after warranty runs out, age quickly and don't hold resale value for shit.\n\n\nSince 2003, I lusted for GT-R - and finally got it in 2011. Most amazing car I ever sold. Yes. Sold. Why? Couldn't justify paying so much money to keep such a narrow utility ride. It's great to show off, or experience brain crushing acceleration and handling. But totally impractical for daily use, expensive to maintain, and I was way too paranoid of something happening to it to truly enjoy it to the fullest.\n\nThe most fun I ever had? My current ride. Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Altitude. My first American car in over 20 years. \n\nHas everything I want - 4x4, any weather or almost any terrain, plus can go topless and haul 4 bikes or trailer home. Doesn't look like Ferrari, but I'm ok with that. The only car I'd replace it with would be the Defender. And I wouldn't sell the Jeep, just pass it down. The only American car that I enjoyed owning for over a year now.\n\nTL;DR: I guess for some folks Utility and right balance of flare and reliability > Looks... ",
"This has [been attempted](_URL_1_) a [couple times](_URL_0_). It did not go over well.\n\nMid-engine supercars are not exactly *practical*. They only have 2 seats, little-to-no storage space, and are difficult to get into and out of. They have poor ground clearance and terrible visibility. They only things they have going for them are exclusivity and performance. Make a cheap \"supercar\" with a budget drivetrain and you've taken away the only things that make them worth owning.",
"5.) designing good looking cars is hard. It's like asking why isn't every movie an Oscar winner, or why isn't every TV show a 'Breaking Bad'. The amount of energy and detail going into a top of the line car is outstanding and the quality of engineers and designers is very rare. Also remember the cadence a new Ferrari model is released is much slower than a economy car. \n\n",
"I feel like Hyundai and Scion are kinda breaking into this idea... their cars look pretty sporty. ",
"If every car was designed to be exotic looking then there would be no exotic looking cars. ",
"If everything is beautiful then nothing is beautiful.",
"Ferraris*\n\nLamborghinis*\n\nNo apostrophes on plurals.",
"Cause not everyone wants to look like a tool when they pull into the grocery store.",
"On top of everything else, a problem with low sports cars is their pedestrian safety rating. I'm not sure about the US, but in Europe the NCAP safety ratings account for the damage a car will do to a pedestrian if it drove into them.\n\nA low car with a long bonnet will drive the car's force into a pedestrian's legs, possibly breaking them, and slamming the person's torso through ninety degrees onto the bonnet/hood. A rounder hatchback like a [Corsa](_URL_0_) will deliver the car's force across a broader area of a pedestrian's body, and keep them largely upright until the car stops.\n\nThe main issue with this from the consumer's point of view is insurance - if the car's safety rating is improved by a good pedestrian one, the car will be cheaper to insure. This is also good for the manufacturer as it means they can sell the car to more buyers and promote it as a safe car.",
"The cars are impractical on many levels. They are expensive, expensive to maintain, barely have storage space, are tiny, have little underside clearance, have no room for big people, can only have one passenger, do not have functional windows, and on and on. ",
"Because not everyone wants to drive a gaudy sports car around. \n\nWhat you call \"visually appealing\" many others call gaudy and obnoxious. Different strokes for different folks. ",
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.",
"Beauty lies in the eyes of beholder. Personally, sometimes when I look at a car and think who the fuck pays for this shit and then a friend of mine at the same time says \"wow what a beauty!\" and vice-versa. There are lot of cheap ass cars which are visually appealing(relative) but do not necessarily function well.",
"Visually appealing is not always practical. see minivan.",
"The top responses are great, but I haven't seen anyone mention this big reason: Most high end exotic cars are hand made / assembled. They can have much more complicated bodies that would be impossible to mass produce on an assembly line with our current technology. \n\nThis assembly process is much slower and much much more expensive than putting cars together on a traditional assembly line. The workers who put super cars together are damn good at what they do.. There are tons of videos on Youtube about supercar manufacturing. This one is about the r8: _URL_0_\n\nAs someone who worked in a factory for a time, the cleanliness of supercar factories really blows me away. I've seen aerospace plants that were less clean.\n\nCars like the Ferrari 458 are built to order. The wait time can be 1 year or more. That's one of the things that makes them so special. ",
"Because a car that looks like a Ferrari and doesn't run like a Ferrari is lamer than a mini van.",
"A little fender bender... $5000. ",
"Most likely to maintain an established order for expensive cars. More expensive cars look better for a reason, and car manufacturers understand this. Though, the other new ford focus's stole their design from aston martin's and jaguars, which might mean that this rule among car manufacturers are changing\n",
"Auto CEOs:\n\n\"If you-a make-a the car like-a ours, we come-a and break-a you leg.\"\n\nSincerely,\n\nLa Cosa Nosta.",
"I can't answer this from a car manufacturer's perspective, but I can try and lend some clarity from a designer's perspective.\n\nFirst, its not as easy as you would think to achieve as much \"visual appeal\" as Ferrari or Lamborghini. Its not just charcoal pencils and turtlenecks; it is really hard work. It is trial, error, and time, all of which are unbelievably expensive at a professional level. \n\nSecond, its the details that set it off, both in visual appeal and production cost. Sometimes auto makers try to come up with cars with more visual appeal; Saturn and Pontiac have taken their turns at sports cars. But you can tell the difference between them and the Italians, can't you? Its because of the great lengths those high-enders go to achieve design excellence. How tightly and smoothly a panel comes to a joint depends on incredibly precise manufacturing, with smaller design tolerances than most other manufacturers. \n\n",
"You think \"Ferrari's are attractive because they are expensive\" \n...whereas in fact you *think* \"Ferraris are attractive\" *because* they are expensive. \nIf cement mixers were objects of your consumerist desire you'd think they were pretty too.",
"In short Economics;Conspicuous Consumption, price discrimination, and market segmentation. Conspicuous consumption is buying things because there expensive. Price discrimination is charging a different price to rich and poor people for a similar good. Market segmentation occurs because sports cars a not very functional when you have 2 kids and a dog, different consumers want different things. Most sports cars are owned by a larger company(Lamborghini is owned by Audi). The difference in production cost between an Audi A4 and lambo is not 350k. A lambo may cost an extra 50-100k in production cost the rest is profit margin.This is a revenue maximization business strategy. ",
"I think product segmentation might also apply to what others have been saying.\n\nEx. Do you think it really costs Apple ~$100 more to make an iPhone 32 GB than a 16 GB? Nah, it probably costs nearly the same amount. But Apple knows that there are different types of consumers out there. Some are rich consumers who have to have the top of the line shit, while other consumers are more poor and just want to have the iPhone, even if it means not getting a top of the line product.\n\nIf, say, Apple only built the 32 GB iPhone for it's normal price of $300 (or whatever, I'm making up the price with an arbitrary number), then the price sensitive consumers won't buy it. So Apple creates 2 versions, 1 version to cater to one or more specific market segment, and another version to cater to the other market segments.",
"Preferences l really. I find my Prius far more attractive than a lambo."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/french-thrash-3"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pininfarina#Production_Cars_Designed_by_Pininfarina"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toyota_Corolla_GT_AE86_Trueno_hatchback.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thegarageblog.com/garage/wp-content/uploads/delorean_19813.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/njyQVB7.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Corsa"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6jooXtS4Wc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cyxluv
|
why do they only sell diapers with characters on them?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cyxluv/eli5_why_do_they_only_sell_diapers_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyut3nj",
"eyutxka",
"eyv2au7",
"eyv401t"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Yes. Cause it works. Changing diapers is not fun for kids or parents but characters on them will distract the kid and get them excited. My daughter would love to see which character was on her diaper. Made the process much easier.",
"I’m not sure of the motivation, but have noticed the dame.\n\nThere are some brands that have different shapes or animals or whatever, but outside cloth diapers there don’t seem to be many plain options.\n\nWe’ve used this to our advantage for potty training because “we don’t want to pee on the elephant” actually works.",
"If they bother to pay the cost of printing the character (and royalties to copyright owners), they must sell better. \n\nRemember that it's parents who choose diapers, not kids. So I guess parents prefer colorful diapers to plain ones. \n\nI also believe the large characters help you tell the front of the diaper from the back, and pattern along the main body helps you see when diaper is full (i.e. swollen).",
"I'm a sales rep, and one of my clients is a large nappy brand in Australia. \n\nA few things come into play here;\n\n1) Multiple colours on a nappy make it feel like a 'premium' nappy to parents, as opposed to a plain or mono colour nappy. Parents like to think they are buying a superior nappy on a budget. When you've got a licensed character/character set that is exclusive to a brand, this only amplifies this feeling. \n\n2) \"limited\" runs of licensed characters can cause parents to buy up in traditionally slow times, because if little 2 year old Taylor likes Big Bird, he's less likely to have a tantrum when you put a Big Bird nappy on. Why not buy 4 boxes now and have a few months of relatively easier changing (and thank you for the last month of the financial year sales boost, Mrs. Taylor's mum!)\n\n3) for patterns as opposed to characters, you can have parts of the pattern that are moisture indicators - when the blue stripe changes to red as a result of moisture seeping through the absorbent gel/pad, that's a good sign that you need to change even if there's been no #2 (or god forbid a #3!!)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
41c81d
|
why do some babies in the womb still survive when the mother dies?
|
I know it's possible but if the unborn gets all its life support from the umbilical cord why doesn't it die straight away when that support no longer functions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41c81d/eli5_why_do_some_babies_in_the_womb_still_survive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz194kg",
"cz19e4o"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"We're talking about babies that are in the final stages of development before birth. A fetus less than 5-6 months old is just going to die... but an 8 month old baby is (more or less) a functional human.\n\nIf the mother dies in a hospital, and the baby is fully developed (at least enough to survive on its own with assistance) then its the same as if it was born via a C-section or prematurely.",
"In brain death, the mother's circulatory and respiratory systems are still functional, so the baby can survive. With intravenous nutrition and whatnot the baby could be given an additional month or so to develop to the point where it could survive outside of the womb via C-Section.\n\nIf we're talking about the other definition of death (at least in the US), the baby will survive for a few minutes before it dies of lack of oxygen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1bmgpg
|
sql injection
|
I have a pretty good idea of what it is but I'd like to confirm my notions.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bmgpg/eli5_sql_injection/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c98047o",
"c98058b"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"It all comes down to essentially tricking a system into passing your code as an SQL command.\n\n[Relevant XKCD which will help explain it.](_URL_0_)\n\nThe joke is the school would enter the name into a name field, but the child's 'name' ends the statement and injects it's own, in this case one that drops a table named 'Students'.\n\nHowever I'm not so intuitive as to break it down into an ELI5, but I hope this gives some insight.",
"Mom: For dinner today, you would like...\n\nYou: Steak, and also you need to give me $20.\n\nSo the full sentence becomes \"For dinner today, Muchuchu would like steak, and also I need to give her/him $20.\"\n\nNow, of course, your mom is going to ignore the last part of that sentence, but computers don't just ignore commands because they're stupid. So by filling in the sentence that way, you can get a computer to give you both steak and $20."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/exploits_of_a_mom.png"
],
[]
] |
|
10kzpk
|
i've been on the national do not call registry for awhile now. i still get multiple telemarketer calls every week. how do they get away with this?
|
Today I got a call from a telemarketer company offering discounts on cruise vacations to the Caribbean. After she was done reading from her text, I promptly called her a bitch, then hung up. (probably not the right thing to do, but it's satisfying)
The thing is, this wasn't a "survey", it was a direct sale. When I picked up the phone and said hello, she specifically started out with selling a product.
I'm pretty sure this is illegal somewhere.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10kzpk/eli5_ive_been_on_the_national_do_not_call/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6edc6e",
"c6edeus",
"c6efqhb",
"c6egdrf",
"c6ehc6m",
"c6ejom6",
"c6eo785"
],
"score": [
3,
21,
40,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In most or all of the U.S.A., it is illegal. Make sure you actually tell the telemarketer that you are on the National Do Not Call list, and you want them to remove your number from their list or have it marked as Do Not Call in their records and the records of anyone else they share numbers with. That will help reduce the number of calls. Then, report those companies to the Better Business Bureau or something like that.",
"You should act interested, get a company name, and call-back number, and then register the complaint here.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Former telemarketer here, \n\n1. When you register on the DNC List it is only active for a certain amount of time. After about a year you need to renew yourself on whatever website you used to register.\n1. Tell the telemarketer that you are on the DNC List. They may be working with older information, and will have to manually take you off of their list. \n1. Never hang up on them because YOU WILL GET CALLED BACK at a later point in time. The meaner and more ridiculous you are the more likely you are to get called back just for the LOLs.\n1. It takes up to three months for your name and number to be considered \"actively DNC.\" Once every quarter is usually when the big telemarketers update their information.",
"Former customer service rep here.\n\nThe DNC list is a finicky beast with **many** holes. The biggest is through affiliates. If you have Comcast as your cable provider, they're allowed to give your information to their affiliates to contact you, regardless of your DNC mumbo-jumbo. Caveat: it's not Comcast, but any telecommunications firm that does business through affiliation. \n\nAs an extension of this, [or basis? idk] many people misunderstand who's calling them. If it's a *special offer* from your telecommunications provider, then this isn't telemarketers scamming you. This is just your provider trying to expand their services. \n\nAs others have said, the DNC is slow to start and quick to stop. You need to constantly reapply for DNC status. ",
"You can always sue:\n\n_URL_0_",
"I volunteer for my local congressman and conduct political surveys, which is somewhat similar but I don't believe is covered by the Do Not Call Registry. Just some advice when dealing with telemarketers: \n\nIt may be *extremely* annoying, but just treat the other person with respect. They're simply trying to make a living and are doing the work that is handed to them. They aren't the people you truly should be mad at. I have had a situation where one lady was extremely polite about the situation, kindly requesting me to remove her from the list and I did exactly that. Then I had another person who decided to threaten me and curse me out. I marked his name to be called again.",
" > After she was done reading from her text, I promptly called her a bitch, then hung up. (probably not the right thing to do, but it's satisfying)\n\nThis isn't the right thing to do. Not because it's mean or something, but because just calling them a bitch hanging up doesn't mean anything. You have to tell them to stop calling and take your name and number off their list, or put it into their internal Do Not Call list and that company won't call you anymore. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx?panel=2"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.killthecalls.com/suing-telemarketers.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
cgixnf
|
why can’t you open a plane door mid flight?
|
Let’s say the lock is disabled.
I might be misunderstanding pressure but if the pressure is so low up in the air while the plane has a much higher pressure why doesn’t the door just pop off and fly off?
What would happen if we had vacuum in the plane?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cgixnf/eli5_why_cant_you_open_a_plane_door_mid_flight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"euhl8g9",
"euhl90s",
"euhlghw"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Except that airplane doors open *inward* you have it correct. \n\nThe pressure is much much greater inside the plane so the force required to overcome the internal pressure is simply too great. The pressure inside is what keeps the door closed.",
"[The aircraft’s pressurization system makes it possible. Here’s how the magic works…](_URL_0_)",
"Most airplane doors open inward.\n\nWhen the plane is at cruising altitude, the pressure inside the cabin is greater than that outside the airplane. Assuming the locks were compromised or otherwise non-functional, you would still have to combat ~4-8 p.s.i. of differential pressure to ***pull*** open the door (consider the fact that a door is comprised of *many* square inches and this is a crazy amount of force).\n\nYou can think of it like a drain plug. The plug is pushed down onto the drain by the water on top of it. To pull the plug out, you have to combat the accumulated pressure caused by the weight of the water. Depending on how deep the water is, this can be very difficult."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://aerosavvy.com/aircraft-pressurization/"
],
[]
] |
|
eot71q
|
how do chimps outmuscle humans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eot71q/eli5_how_do_chimps_outmuscle_humans/
|
{
"a_id": [
"feexnqi",
"feexz3z"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"\n\n\nSwinging around and such....they essentially do nothing but work out all day, every day.\n\nThey don't sit in front of the TV. They don't sit all day at work. \n\n\nChimps are straight up [YOLKED](_URL_0_) under that fur.\n\n\nPound for pound, you don't stand a chance.",
"Somewhere along the evolutionary path we traded being able to use our muscles at 100% for the ability to make very fine and controlled movements by growing and developing different muscle types."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc0rATlqAO8GhEX8Tpphx6yc_qfLrqzIpJfc5tqu9KvwpneyyL-Q&s"
],
[]
] |
||
870d5g
|
how did the nintendo game duck hunt know where you were aiming the gun?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/870d5g/eli5_how_did_the_nintendo_game_duck_hunt_know/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dw97p3v",
"dw99zgc",
"dw9aq8h",
"dw9hf32",
"dw9ieg5",
"dw9ihjg",
"dw9izno"
],
"score": [
14673,
689,
91,
9,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The original duck hunt was designed for CRT televisions and would not work on an LCD. A CRT (cathode ray tube) works by spraying a stream of electrons at a screen which has pixels that glow when the electrons hit it. The spray progressively sweeps from left to right; top to bottom. It would do this about 100 times per second. \n\nThe duck hunt gun was a small focusing lens and a white light sensor (like a solar panel but optimized for sensing). \n\nWhen you pull the trigger, the whole screen displays black for a few microseconds and then the area around the ducks lit up as white squares one at a time. Each duck gets its on flash one at a time. When the gun saw a white square through its photosensor, the game would stop progressing through squares and report it hit that duck based on the timing. \n\n**Edit: thank you for the gold kind stranger!**\n**I'll post this as a bonus.** Duck hunt already made me go viral once before. It turned me into a meme in college. After getting second in a dorm duck hunt drinking tournament, we stole the controller and posted this to college humor:\n\n_URL_0_",
"When you press the trigger, the screen turns black and all the targets turn into white squares, for just a fraction of a second. The gun detects whether or not it's pointed at something bright (the white squares), hence the term \"light gun\".",
"But how does it know which duck was hit?",
"Dammit, finally one I know the answer to and I'm way too late.\n\nAnyways, answer is that when you pull the trigger, the whole screen turns black except for the square with the duck. Gun has a sensor and can tell if it is pointed at white or black. ",
" > I can see how this would work on the wii but the NES didn’t have a sensor bar or anything.\n\nIt actually works on the same principle. What do you think the sensor bar does?\n\nThe Wiimote, just like the NES light gun, is a *camera*. You can learn more about it in [this old TED talk](_URL_0_). The Wiimote sees light from the sensor bar, sends the location of that light to the Wii, and the Wii calculates where the Wiimote is pointing.\n\nBut wait, you say. The sensor bar is a sensor; it doesn't emit light! NOPE. The \"sensor bar\" is nothing but a pair of light bulbs at either end, but you can't see the light because it's infrared. However, it's *near* infrared, so if you point your cell phone camera at the sensor bar, you'll be able to see the lights! Same thing with your TV remote, actually. Your Wiimote camera sees the two lights on the sensor bar and relays that information to the Wii. But really, any infrared source will work. You can use a pair of incandescent bulbs or even candles.\n\nThe NES light gun works on the same principle, though with with so much less processing power, Duck Hunt uses tricks to know whether you hit a duck rather than calculating the position of the gun. The light gun is still a camera, but instead of seeing a sensor bar, the light gun sees what's on the actual screen, though only with a narrow angle. The game puts signals on the actual screen that the camera reads; in this case, it flashes the screen and the ducks' hit boxes in different ways and the light gun sends to the console what it saw in the small region it was looking at.\n\nIn both cases, the whole thing is a misdirection. The products are shaped and marketed to make you think that the console is seeing these toy items you're holding -- we all know that guns shoot things *out*, for example, so obviously the gun is shooting a signal that is being received somehow, just like in laser tag, right? -- but in reality, the opposite is happening; the TV is shooting the signals to the gun, which is the receiver, not the sender. Same with the Wii; the Wii tells you that it has a \"sensor bar\", which is obviously a sensor, sensing things, but in reality, the sensor is in the Wiimote and the sensor bar is nothing but a pair of infrared LEDs.\n\nOn the other hand, the Kinect is a real camera that can really see you.",
"Random bit of info about duckhunt not many know, it's a 2 player game. Plug in a second controller and you can control the ducks.",
"I seen the title and skipped passed this post thinking I knew how this worked. Ten seconds into reading something else and trying to hash out my ideas I realized I didn’t know shit and came back and learned something new. Thanks! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://i.imgur.com/iexPEqW_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ted.com/talks/johnny_lee_demos_wii_remote_hacks"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
9m3k6v
|
how can your digestive tract differentiate solid food and liquid to make urine and feces?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9m3k6v/eli5_how_can_your_digestive_tract_differentiate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7bmt4x",
"e7bmugw",
"e7bnfmt"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Basically it doesn't at all. Your kidneys filter your blood waste-- > urine and your stomache,intestines, and colon filter your food/drink waste-- > feces. Urine is a liquid because water is a VERY good carrier of the stuff your body wants to be rid of. Feces is everything you ate/drank that your body didn't want/cant digest; its solid becuase your intestines absorb all the liquid they can out of it. ",
"The waste produced from the substance you take in to include liquids is absorbed and filtered through your kidneys via blood stream in your small intestines. Kidneys dump the liquid byproduct to the bladder. The solids that cannot be broken down enough to be absorbed are expelled through large intestines as solid waste.",
"So take a wet sponge and stick it in a sock right? Now squeeze the sponge through the sock. The liquid is taken away by the walls. Intestines do a similar thing. The walls of your intestines absorb the nutrients and liquids which go into your blood. Kidneys filter the blood, and these impurities go to the bladder."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ik1qd
|
why/how does it matter if your oven is warm or not before placing your pizza or other foods inside? does food end up different if you wait until the oven is fully warm first?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ik1qd/eli5_whyhow_does_it_matter_if_your_oven_is_warm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db8qvls",
"db8qx7y",
"db8qxc5",
"db8zuxd",
"db9894r",
"db9ki0l"
],
"score": [
12,
6,
30,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"If the oven isn't hot when you put the food in, then your food won't cook for the first 5-10 mins after you put it in the oven. If the receipe calls for 20 mins of baking time, then your food won't be done when that 20 mins is up.",
"If your oven is at 350 degrees, and then you put your pizza in for 20 minutes, you've given your pizza 20 minutes of 350 degree heat.\n\nBut if you put your pizza in, then you turn on the oven, then since your oven starts at 0 and heats up to 350, your pizza is only getting, say, 15 minutes of 350 degree heat, with 5 minutes of less heat as the oven warms up.\n\nSince baking times are usually pretty specific, you'll often end up with undercooked food if you do that!",
"Mostly it's to standardize the baking time. One oven may heat from 70-350 in 5 minutes, another might take 10 minutes, it might be 90 degrees in your kitchen one day and 65 another so it takes a different amount of time to heat.\n\nSo if a pizza takes 10 minutes to bake at 400, and you put it in without preheating, after 10 minutes it probably won't be done. And it might take another 2 minutes or another 15 depending on how slowly the oven preheated.\n\nWith cakes and bread this is especially important because opening the oven to check if it's done will blast it with cooler air and it will sink and flatten out if it isn't cooked enough to stay fluffy. ",
"It mostly does not matter, however there are some cases where it does. (Science note) when food \"browns\" it is something called the Maillard reaction, this occurs at around 300 deg F, and it gives food that nice golden brown and delicious flavor we all love. What does this mean for cooking? It means that you want to get some part of your food up to that temperature for some amount of time (all of which depends on the kind of food and desired result, etc). It's not just about energy, it is also about power. This is the reason that a steak cooked on low for 20 minutes is not the same as a steak cooked on medium for 10 minutes. \n\nSo there are certainly some situations where temperature of the oven at the beginning is very important, but I'm a scientist, not a baker, so maybe someone could help me out? ",
"Preheating helps ensure even heating for the food that's in the oven. If you put it in before preheating then the food might only be cooked on the side facing the heat, often the bottom of the oven. when you preheat all the air in the oven is all the same temperature.",
"Sometimes I preheat, sometimes I don't...just to save myself a trip. My food is always fine. I don't really think it matters."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3cutl7
|
how could ibm photograph atoms?
|
In [this](_URL_0_) video, IBM captures atoms on a camera. However, atoms, at 0.5-1.0 nanometers in length, are much, much smaller than light waves, at 500-700 nanometers in length. So how was it possible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cutl7/eli5_how_could_ibm_photograph_atoms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csz6885",
"cszfcfe"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Electron Scanning Microscope perchance? Someone more educated will probably have to tell you for sure, but quite obviously electrons are smaller than atoms. ",
"They don't photograph them in any conventional sense. Rather, they use a device called a scanning tunneling microscope which moves a very sharp needle over a sample with *ludicrously* high precision and measures the electric current that flows as the tip of the needle gets close to an atom. Then, they interpret various current levels as shades of gray and create an image.\n\nIn the case of the IBM video, they also used the STM to move the atoms, and atoms aren't anywhere near as large as .5-1 nm, more like .1-.5 nm.\n\nNo version of an electron microscope can even get close to this level of resolution.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3lx5g0
|
why do many americans think obama is a terrible president and bush was amazing? from my view (uk) it easily seems the other way around?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lx5g0/eli5why_do_many_americans_think_obama_is_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cva1fvv",
"cva1gs6",
"cva1oco",
"cva1x9j",
"cva2jxi",
"cva2ob3",
"cva2u3h",
"cva33lr",
"cva35xj",
"cva3997",
"cva3pck",
"cva3vqd",
"cva53wx",
"cva6yfv"
],
"score": [
147,
26,
38,
15,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As an American, I can tell you that there will always be about half the people who hate the president and half who like him. That's the nature of our polarizing political climate. Throw in a little racism, and bam: Obama is the worst president ever. ",
"I don't know man... I don't know. people HATED Bush. HATED him. i mean, look at eminem's M.O.S.H, A Perfect Circle's 'counting bodies like sheep,' or even that one Whitest Kids sketch about blowing up bush's bedroom with an RPG, and many many more examples that i'm not remembering... shit was real bad under bush, and then Obama got elected and it's like people just forgot. Bush/Cheney was like the evil villian two-for-one in so many peoples eyes, and now Obama's 'hitler' for forcing healthcare on people and shit. \n\nI don't get it. ",
"Because politically-biased radio and television personalities repeatedly and blatantly lie to the American people. Many Americans believe terrible things about politicians and their policies that simply are not true.",
"Why Obama is hated:\n\nIt is a fact that Obama didnt (or was unable to) deliver on many campaign promises. \n\nObama's personal position on many issues (like peace through diplomacy, pro gay, pro choice) makes him a target for the GOP where as his administration's policies (not prosecuting wall street, more drones, etc) makes liberals wonder. \n\nThe worst after effects of many Bush era policies were felt in Obama's reign. Fox news did a wonderful job of associating Obama with it but he actually had to clean up ( returning veterans, housing crisis, ISIS- partly from Iraq war). \n\nObama's racial background, his educational background make him an easy target.\n\n\nWhy Bush is not so disliked:\n\nNo one had any great expectations of him in the first place. \nHis policies which allowed huge powers to CIA, NSA etc only became controversial much later. \n\nBush had inherited a relatively strong economy and military. Even if he drove it to ground people still had better memories. \n\nThe congress was more functional, there was not a small fraction the GOP and nutjobs who openly vowed to hold government hostage over every democratically made policy decision. \n\nBush had Texas origins and a famous last name. So in that sense he is not an outsider like Obama.",
"I don't think the original statement is accurate in any meaningful way. (Or, the converse, for that matter.)\n\nIt describes only hardcore partisans who would make similar statements about any two people based purely on partisan differences.",
"For the same reason many Americans think Bush was a terrible president and Obama is amazing: partisan loyalty. They're both actually shitty presidents that have done similarly shitty things.",
"Yeah, I'm Canadian and I don't understand why Republicans hate Obama so much. I tend to think Americans treat politics in part like a football game. It's like a Giants vs Cowboys rivalry gone amok. Or to treat it with more poignancy like Yankees vs Red Sox. A fan of one team wouldn't be caught dead cheering for the other. Political affiliation isn't something you choose, you're born into it.\n\nWe seem to have a similar thing happening in Canada, and I don't like it. ",
"What kind of news do you have in the UK?",
"America has a lot of people. Therefore America has a lot of people who believe any silly thing you might happen to mention. That is simply how multiplication works.\n\nMeanwhile, Obama' approval rating are higher than Bush's were near the end of his terms, so many **more** Americans agree with you.",
"It has to do with our completely polarized political system. We have two main parties that are practically unbeatable.\nLet me put it into perspective. The First American to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize, he gave a speech with a bullet lodged in his chest, had a photographic memory, was the father of the modern U.S. Navy, and was one of the few people to climb the Matterhorn. This man was Teddy Roosevelt and he still lost in the 1912 Presidential election as a third party candidate with 27.4%.\n\nHe was elected President though, and the only real difference was that he was in one of the two major parties (this time with 56.4%)\n\nThis hold isn't just in the political arena. The two parties hold sway over media in our country as well. Almost every major news outlet can be identified as one party sided or another. Generally, people of that party watch, listen, and read their news outlets information.\n\nDuring a presidency the news of the opposing party will generally be more negative. Spread this out over 4 years and that parties members will have heard 4 years of bad news. Whether it is wholly true or not is irrelevant. So, toward the end of a presidency most people of the opposing party will be upset at the current president.\n\nNow, in addition to the media there are other portions of our government that may stall the President's campaign platform, promises, and goals. In general this means that over a presidency he will likely not get everything he promised completed (if anything.) This will upset some of his political party members who elected him because of one of these unfulfilled promises.\n\nFinally, if a President lasts 2 terms that is 8 years for them to be demonized by their political opponents and to disillusion their political supporters.\n\nWe are currently at the end of Obama's second term, near the height of his \"villainy\" and party abandonment. If you compare this time to the end of Bush's second term you will see that they are both not looked upon very well and possibly evenly. Not because they were particularly bad presidents (not saying they were good) but because they have been there for so long.\n\nTLDR: 8 Years of bad press (GOP) + 8 Years of Disillusionment (Dems) = Bad current view... but no worse than Bush 8 years ago.",
"When Bush was elected it was not on some huge platform of Change and HOPE!. Half the country might dislike any given president for not being a member of the correct political party.\n\nObama has managed to alienate people from his own party who thought he might be different when he turned out to the the same old thing.",
"There are a few reasons:\n\n(A) He came in to one of the worst financial crisis we've had as a nation in a long time. High unemployment, spiraling housing values, lack of growth in every sector...2008/2009 sucked. It was largely a byproduct of two unsustainable wars and poor planning from Bush and Congress, partially caused by deregulation in the housing market, but it was easy to pin it on Obama that early on. People think he fucked up -- either that he was the direct cause, or he botched the recovery...\n\n(B) This leads to the belief that Obama didn't do enough to fix the recession. It was a terribly slow recovery (some areas are still in recovery) -- Obama's efforts (more regulation, better rights for consumers) are not quick fixes, but they helped over the long haul.\n\n(C) GOP made it a key goal to blame Obama for every problem. All of them. Bad markets? Obama! International crisis? Obama! Government shutdown? Obama! Mr. Nappybutt, your cat, died? OBAMA!!! In some cases, there were obstructionist policies thrown directly in his path by the GOP, and Obama was blamed for not getting enough done by the people who were stopping him.\n\n(D) Obama doesn't do victory laps well. He'll put forth amazing legislation or accomplish a fantastic goal, and no one will know about it because of all the noise from the right. Screaming and yelling about how terrible Obama has been, despite the prosperity we currently have (wars mostly over, possible brokered Iran nuclear deal, stronger healthcare, better unemployment numbers, stronger housing markets, better regulations -- all under his watch). He was so focused on compromise and working together that he got thrown under the bus. A lot. It's easy to pin the blame on a black president.\n\n(E) The average racist American can't conceive of the notion that a black president didn't do a terrible job. It just doesn't add up in their tiny racist minds. He MUST have screwed up. Doesn't matter that the record mostly shows he's done pretty damn well -- not necessarily great, but not awful -- he's a godless Muslim piece of trash and he ruined our great nation with gay marriage and baby killing! Not like the great white born again Christian George W. Bush! He went and fought those Muslims personally, all while singing hymns.\n\nIn short, Obama came into a presidency with the cards stacked against him, faced constant obstruction, had a multibillion dollar PR machine against him, and had to face racist and discriminatory actions, sometimes for things that weren't even true about him. And he still has, for the most part, kicked ass. \n\nCan't complain really.",
"Let's try this. Say I give you two people, person A is alot like you but fuck up alot until you get frustrated you always liked person A but more people didn't so you kinda hoped on that bandwagon. Well finally hate for person A subsides and a new person comes front and center and everyone is saying he murders babies, is a socialist, and wants your freedom. Person B seemed pretty cool but you don't want to hang around a guy that makes you that uneasy. So then you and your friends start gossiping about person B and saying how much you wish A would come back because he was bad but not baby murder bad. Then you see all these people still hanging around person B that know him and don't believe the ludicrous rumors. So you hate them by association. Now a middle school analogy shouldn't work when talking about politics but it really works when talking about politics... so take that scale blow it up to America's population and you get our fun situation",
"It happens when a president wins by a margin. Because that means a large minority didn't want thay president to win and a slightly larger majority defends their vote. It happend with bush too since he won by a very slim margin but you wouldn't see it with with a president that won by a landslide or a very large percent of the population. Though Facebook gives the loud minority a bigger voice so it will probably always look like it does now even if its just one guy making memes in a basement."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3gcuxi
|
what is the difference between being intelligent and being intellectual?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gcuxi/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctwy0fw"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"To be an intellectual you have to be interested in certain things: art, politics, philosophy, science. Plenty of smart people don't give a hoot about those things, but interest in them tends to track with intelligence. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
f5onzh
|
when you stop paying for a grave at a cemetery, what happens to the casket?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f5onzh/eli5_when_you_stop_paying_for_a_grave_at_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhzwegp",
"fi13nhi"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"the graves are leased for a set amount of years usually in the 20-50 year range. \n\nIf the lease expires, depending on the country and legislation the body is either incinerated or dumped in a common grave.",
"Usually, you purchase a plot in perpetuity, you pay enough that many can be invested and the proceeds can cover the maintenance on the graves and the cemetery in general. Governments often have regulations about how much money the cemetery has to set aside, or in other cases, it is owned by the state and maintained with tax dollars.\n\nIn some areas, especially crowded areas and those with a high water table, you only lease the site for a few decades. The remain might be cremated, interred above ground, or placed in a common ossuary."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3tr2mi
|
what are the requirements to call something a "world war"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tr2mi/eli5_what_are_the_requirements_to_call_something/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx8gugf",
"cx8gv1n"
],
"score": [
13,
5
],
"text": [
"There's not like an official body that recognizes these things. If enough people and media said something was World War 3, then it would be World War 3. ",
"There's no official definition. Generally, it would involve belligerents from all over the world, fighting about things that were global in nature, or at least not regional.\n\nNow, that's my definition, and when you think about it, WW1 doesn't even qualify."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
58zakw
|
what is an investment bank? trying to understand what happened when the lehman brothers bank collapsed and the economic crisis started, in 2008
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58zakw/eli5_what_is_an_investment_bank_trying_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d94huop",
"d94hxnz",
"d94lwxn",
"d94rgxi",
"d954nhe",
"d954t9i"
],
"score": [
5,
10,
93,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's tricky to really pin down who is an investment bank and who isn't. Because many investment banks have commercial bank parts. Here is the quick and easy version. Commercial banks you give them your money and they make car loans, mortgages, and all general banking stuff. They make some money on interest on loans, very boring. Investment banks are the customers access to equity markets. They hire managers to create mutual funds to pick stocks. They do quantitative research. They offer all manner and sort of products so a customer can invest in anything from foreign real estate to Apple shares. Lehman did that. Their specialty was bonds. 2008 was really a bond market failure. Mortgages were bundled into bonds, misrated by Moodys and S & P. Bonds are supposed to be more secure than stocks. So the bonds went bad and everybody got screwed because everyone bought them. Nobody really liked the CEO of Lehman and after the government bailed out Long Term Capital Management in '98 he didn't want to participate in the Fed's strategy so they kinda just let Lehman die. It's kinda like we can teach JPMorgan to play ball but we couldn't reform Lehman's terrible buy the risk buisness model. It was partly personal, part sending a message.",
"I might recommend \"The Big Short.\" They have really funny ELI5 segments recited by famous actors and supermodels",
"There are two kids, Fred and Grace. Fred has $5. Grace has no money. Fred and Grace don't know each other, but they are both friends with Ben. \n\n\nOne day, Grace decides she wants to start a lemonade stand, but unfortunately she needs $5 in order to buy the lemons and sugar. \nShe asks Ben if he has $5. Ben does not, but he remembers that Fred has $5! \n\nBen goes and asks Fred if he can borrow the $5. At the end of the day, he will give back the $5 and even throw in an extra dollar. Fred gives Ben the money.\n\nBen goes back to Grace with the $5. \"Here Grace! Here is $5 for your lemonade stand!\" he says. \"But since I helped you, you should give me half of the money you make today.\"\n\nGrace doesn't want to give up half of the money she makes, but if she doesn't, she won't get be able to make lemonade at all, so she says \"alright\". \n\nAt the end of the day, she has made $14. She keeps $7 and gives $7 to Ben. Ben goes back to Fred and gives him the $6 he promised. He still has $1 left over!\n\nBen realizes that if he can find other kids who want to start lemonade stands, he can do this every day and make money. Not only that, everyone is happy! Ben makes money, Grace is able to start a lemonade stand, and Fred makes money without having to do anything at all!\n\nIn this case, Ben is an investment bank.\n\n\nAfter a week, he is borrowing money from a whole bunch of friends each day. He has helped 10 different kids start lemonade stands. Everything is going really well. But then one day it rains. No one sells any lemonade. He goes to Grace and asks for half of her money. She frowns and tells him she didn't make any. Ben then goes back to Fred and tells him that he can't pay him back. This is sort of what happened with Lehman brothers. \n\nThey made loans that went bad, and didn't have as much money as they needed to pay all their debts, so they had to shut down. Imagine that, instead of rain, the reason no one buys lemonade was because the season changes. All of a sudden, it's really cold. Lemonade stands are worthless! They won't make any money for months. Ben would be unable to pay back Fred (and all the other kids whose money he borrowed) at all! \n\nWhen the housing market went bad, everyone realized that houses were bad investments. They weren't nearly as valuable as people thought, so all of the loans that had gone towards buying real estate were just as useful as a lemonade stand in winter.\n\n\n\n**TLDR; an investment bank is like a kid who borrows money from his friend to help his other friend start a lemonade stand. The housing crisis is like a kid borrowing a LOT of money from his friend to help his other friend start a lemonade stand on the very last day of summer.**\n\n\n\n\n\nEdit: /u/Laminar_flo pointed out that this simple type of loan is really closer to the way a commercial bank works (the type where you might have a checking account). Check out his/her comment to see the more complex distinction.",
"In the strictest sense an investment bank is the group in charge of valuing large public sized companies and obtaining capital for them, either via equity (IPOs and secondary share offerings) or debt (bonds and bank loans). They make money by agreeing the buy or fund the entire offering in one big shot and then selling to people who want it in the broader market. \n\nIn reality a million different businesses were bolted on to this and many of them had and have troubling conflicts of interest. \n\nLehman in particular got sunk by many of these \"bolt ons\" but also got stuck holding the bag by making offerings of debt that, when the rubber met the road, nobody wanted. ",
"During the mid-2000's, China grew a lot economically. That in turn resulted in a lot more capital becoming available in the world market.\n\nIf you have capital, you want to invest it in a profitable, yet safe manner. In that regard, real estate is usually considered both profitable and safe: People are motivated to pay for their mortgages in order to keep the roof over their heads, and even if they default, you still have the house, so there is no loss of principle.\n\nThe problem with this is that the pool of people who can afford a mortgage is finite, and if there is more capital than those people need, the mortgage pool opens up to people who really shouldn't get one. This in turn resulted in more people defaulting, meaning that more houses went on the market, which in turn drove down prices, which in turn meant that the security aspect of still having the house even if the mortgage holder defaults was suddenly irrelevant.\n\nA further complication was that banks didn't keep the mortgages they gave out, but rather sold them to third parties as \"mortgage-backed securities\", so that it became unclear who owed whom how much and what the loans were secured by, causing a further loss of confidence, and further driving down prices.",
"I don't know if I have a great addition to the analogy of kids posted earlier, but here's what I understand from reports that came out back during the crisis. Lehman Brothers had a huge amount of their business in making very large, very safe, very short-term loans. A few percentage points on loans that were repaid in a day or two. Very small interest payments, but en masse they made for a lot of money. As I recall, things went sour for them almost overnight as the housing market collapsed.\n\nIf you have an hour or two, this podcast won awards for their explanation of the crisis:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money"
]
] |
||
49ujfa
|
what mistakes were made during the first gulf war on behalf of the u.s. and coalition forces, and why are they so successful in making people today believe the war was not that great of a success?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49ujfa/eli5_what_mistakes_were_made_during_the_first/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0uxnt3"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"Honestly, the First Gulf war was an unqualified success for the coalition. There was a clearly defined goal (get Iraq out of Kuwait), and it was achieved with very minimal loss of coalition forces. As the coalition included many Arab nations, the US and allies managed to avoid pissing off other countries in the region, and some extreme diplomacy was successful in preventing Israel, a non-combatant in this conflict, from retaliating when Iraq lobbed missiles there way.\n\nThere were about a million things that could have gone wrong, and really, none of them did.\n\nThere are some that feel that the first Gulf war was a failure because Saddam was still in power at the end of it. But like I said, regime change in Iraq wasn't the goal of the war."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
50muuo
|
why is a mouse superior to a controller when aiming in first person shooters?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50muuo/eli5_why_is_a_mouse_superior_to_a_controller_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d75a66k",
"d75aaq3",
"d75agqp",
"d76fcb0"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's all about precision and response. There is a direct correlation between the movement of the mouse and the movement of the cursor/reticle. Move the mouse fast, aim fast. Most the mouse slow, aim slow. Move the mouse just a tiny bit and the view shifts a tiny bit, and those tiny movements can be much quicker and more accurate as they can be controlled with all of the fingers and the wrist and do not suffer from the acceleration delay that analog sticks do.\n\nEven with my 10+ year old Microsoft intellimouse I have almost pixel-level control. On a nice modern laser mouse I would have even more accuracy, and many of those have switches that allow one to change sensitivity on the fly, making the sensitivity low for things like sniping, or high when in high-action situations so I can spin around with just a tiny movement of my wrist. \n\nA controller simply can't compare.",
"Can I assume by controller you don't mean joystick?\n\nIf so, because of the level of control. The buttons apply a sudden 100% adjustment in that direction, which you limit by letting go. You keep tapping to get the right result. You may let go too late and overshoot your intended target. I appreciate you get progressive controllers nowadays but they're still a compromise.\n\nA mouse gives you the ability to make changes as small as you like, and as quickly as you like. It's about accuracy and rate of change.\n\nIt's exactly the same as a steering wheel in a car. If you're going right, you don't want to make lots of tiny adjustments by pressing the \"Right\" button to make the wheels point 100% right for a moment, you want smooth, gradual control which more easily adjusts to the changing environment.\n\nSame as a shooter, you need to be able to react faster, and part of that is rate of change which is faster and superior with a mouse. You can't tell a controller in advance if you want to turn quickly or slowly, but a mouse does that automatically.\n",
"Because the movement of the mouse correlates directly to the movement of the camera, while the movement of the stick correlates only to the *speed* of the movement of the camera.\n\nSo, to move your crosshair on the screen 2cm to the right, you have to move your mouse maybe 5mm (totally made up numbers), which very quickly gets burnt into your muscle memory (provided the game has no mouse acceleration). You can move the mouse a certain distance quite precisely without needing any feedback from your screen.\n\nWhereas with a controller, to move that same amount, you have to press the stick into that direction, hold it there, look at the screen, wait for the crosshair to reach the desired spot, and release the stick. You can't rely on muscle memory for that, you have to rely on that movement - feedback - movement loop, which is significantly slower than just *doing* the exact movement you need.\n\nAnd another thing is that using the stick you have a maximum turning speed. Either that speed is high and you lose precision when you need small movements, or that speed is low and you can't turn quickly.\n\nSo with a stick, you are always either slower or less precise than aiming with a mouse, which is why console games often have aiming assist systems in place that slow the camera movement down when you're near a target.",
"The nature of the mouse being 1:1 in most cases is a big part of the reason. Moving the mouse a certain distance will cause the movement in-game to move a proportional amount, which is very easy to understand. Sticks on the other hand use a velocity system, where you point in a direction and use the stick pressure to tell it how fast to turn. This is less intuitive, and takes a bit to adjust to.\n\nSensitivity is another element. Controllers are limited to a sensitivity cap, and given the range of motion it can become difficult to control your aim if you put the sensitivity too high. Mice can potentially make instant turns even on lower sensitivities because the limit of movement is only bound by how fast you can move your hand, or how big the mouse pad is.\n\nI will bring up that controllers are almost never done optimally. I won't say that controller would fully match a mouse is done optimally, but there are a lot of claims(a number in this topic), that the velocity system is the main issue, when it's a number of other things that impact it more.\n\nFirst are the deadzones. Deadzones are a region around the center of a stick that don't register movement in-game. This is to stop cursor drift if the stick doesn't center perfectly. The downside is these are normally set too large, and with no options to customize. The larger the deadzone, the more difficult it is to make precise adjustments, and large deadzones are huge reason players have trouble with them. There are also square/axial deadzones being used in most games than limit the diagonal movement the stick can output.\n\nAcceleration is the other big one. The acceleration curve is how stick pressure translates into speed. If this isn't precise enough, making precise or accurate adjustments will be very difficult, or require you to play at a lower sensitivity. With a good curve, you can play at very high sensitivities while still being able to make accurate shots. Inconsistent acceleration is a problem, normally with the diagonals. A number of games(most with square deadzones) have uneven acceleration which can make it very difficult to gauge the speed you're turning at so aiming is affected negatively.\n\nI could write you an essay on that crap, but just know what aside from the velocity system's issues(speed cap, less intuitive), *most* of the issues with accuracy are because of poor programming of the mechanics of that system. Those aren't inherent issues with controller aiming, but an incorrect setting up of the mechanics, as well as a severe lack of basic options for it are what create the inaccuracy. Too much of the time the controller is blamed for those issues, when it's the fault of developers for not setting it up correctly.\n\nTo simply answer it, the mouse is superior because it has no speed cap and is more intuitive to use."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ygv7l
|
why is mozart considered the greatest ever musical genius?
|
Why is he better than Beethoven? Why is he better than Tchicovsky, or even John Williams? How can music be 'better'
anyway?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ygv7l/eli5_why_is_mozart_considered_the_greatest_ever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfkdovl",
"cfkez0q"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Highly, highly subjective...\n\nBut much of it would be attributed to his exceptional gifts at an insanely young age. When you and I were learning how to tie our shoes he was transcribing hour long choral works in the back of a carriage ride home. \n\nSo a lot of Mozart's \"hype\" for lack of a better word (not that he *isn't* a great genius and *doesn't* deserve it) stems from his incredibly prodigious childhood. He was actually terrible with money later in life and a bit of a flake by many accounts:)",
"Honestly: Good press. Not to say he's not amazing and one of the great composers, but there's a dozen who could vie for the best, and even then it's all subjective. I'd say most opera-philes would consider him on a par with Verdi and Wagner, but if push came to shove and every opera fan in the world were polled ... I think Wagner would narrowly take it.\n\nFor symphonies ... there's lots of competition. For religious / choral work, there's also lots of competition. Thing is, often the competition for each category is against different people. So it might be said that Mozart was really good at lots of types of composing, and that's probably a large part of his renown -- he's good at everything, whereas Beethoven (for example) only wrote one opera, and Bach none at all. On the other hand, Verdi and Wagner aren't known for their symphonies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
m296v
|
night vision
|
How does like the night vision on cameras, like those used in like ghost hunters and stuff? like does it give off alittle bit of almost un detectable light and use that to see? I just dont understand how if theres no light in a room how it can pick up anything.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m296v/eli5_night_vision/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2xhtnp",
"c2xinst",
"c2xhtnp",
"c2xinst"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It is actually kind of hard to have NO light in a room. Most forms of 'night vision operate on one of two principles.\n\n* Use the very very tiny amount of light that filters in under door cracks, between shutters, etc. from moon and starlight and nearby street lights. The camera takes in that light, makes a very very dim picture, then turns up the brightness a dozen or a hundred times over.\n* Use infrared. This is light that humans can't normally see. However it is possible for a camera to detect it electronically and show you a picture of say, black where it didn't detect infrared and white where it did. This is the classic \"heat vision\" look, though it's not quite as accurate as portrayed in the movies.",
"An experiment you can do is take the red lens of a set of 3d goggles and look through it. You'll notice everything will be monochrome red and black. This is because the red lens filters out all the other colors (if you take ms paint and draw a rainbow and then hold the lens in front of the screen it works pretty well to see the effect).\n\nThis filter effect can be applied to light which we cannot normally see such as infrared. Basically you take a camera and put a filter on it so that it blocks out all the \"normal\" visible light and only lets IR through. Then, you use what is basically an IR flashlight pointed in the same direction as the camera. Anything close will reflect a lot of light and be bright and things farther away will be darker (although the material matters too).\n\nThat's just one of the ways to do it.",
"It is actually kind of hard to have NO light in a room. Most forms of 'night vision operate on one of two principles.\n\n* Use the very very tiny amount of light that filters in under door cracks, between shutters, etc. from moon and starlight and nearby street lights. The camera takes in that light, makes a very very dim picture, then turns up the brightness a dozen or a hundred times over.\n* Use infrared. This is light that humans can't normally see. However it is possible for a camera to detect it electronically and show you a picture of say, black where it didn't detect infrared and white where it did. This is the classic \"heat vision\" look, though it's not quite as accurate as portrayed in the movies.",
"An experiment you can do is take the red lens of a set of 3d goggles and look through it. You'll notice everything will be monochrome red and black. This is because the red lens filters out all the other colors (if you take ms paint and draw a rainbow and then hold the lens in front of the screen it works pretty well to see the effect).\n\nThis filter effect can be applied to light which we cannot normally see such as infrared. Basically you take a camera and put a filter on it so that it blocks out all the \"normal\" visible light and only lets IR through. Then, you use what is basically an IR flashlight pointed in the same direction as the camera. Anything close will reflect a lot of light and be bright and things farther away will be darker (although the material matters too).\n\nThat's just one of the ways to do it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6utv9k
|
what is that nasty gunky substance in your mouth after waking up? what is the cause of it and is that the reason we must brush our teeth in the morning?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6utv9k/eli5_what_is_that_nasty_gunky_substance_in_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlvd4xn",
"dlvdnu5"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you're not brushing your teeth well enough before you go to bed, it may be plaque. But if you are, it might just be the inner lining of your mouth shedding and congealing nastily due to the nighttime dryness of your mouth.\n\nYour mucus membranes shed even faster than the rest of your skin.",
"Is it white stringy weird shit? You might wanna try a different brand of toothpaste and mouthwash.\n\nCrest products do this to me. I'm a straight up Colgate person now."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8txamt
|
how does controlling our muscles work?
|
Clarification: I know our brain sends signals and that muscles are like pulleys and such.
What I want to know is how does my brain make my arm move when I, say, slap my brother. Like I don't think, "move my bicep and my forearm and etc." I don't even think slap him. I barely even think about the action itself. But I still slap him. How am I controlling my body without actually thinking about it (but somehow still am at the same time?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8txamt/eli5_how_does_controlling_our_muscles_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1ayrqs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As far as I know, subconsciously your brain has essentially grouped those muscle movements into a sort of \"slap\" category, or essentially \"muscle memory\". Pro athletes train themselves to do the same kinds of things with the movements they do, i.e a pro golfer would group all of the movements of his hips, shoulders, forearm placements etc into the \"putt\" category through constant training. That saves conscious brainpower and is kind of the same thing that happens with breathing (although your muscle memory for breathing is far more quickly learned than a tiger woods drive). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6o3ufo
|
at what point does a tomato become "dead"—when i cut it off the vine? at some specific point thereafter? how do we measure plant "aliveness"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6o3ufo/eli5_at_what_point_does_a_tomato_become_deadwhen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkefsxs",
"dkeh8xl"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"When the cells lose their ability to function. At any point before that, most plants have the ability to completely regenerate themselves assuming conditions are good enough. There are no real definitions for plants being alive though because there isn't a legal need for it.",
"The tomato is full of seeds which are certainly alive, because each can grow into another whole plant.\n\nThe cells making up the rest of the tomato are still alive when you pick it, but gradually begin to die. Some live for days."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3jy7u7
|
why are f1 racing car considered the most challenging vehicle to drive? what is the difference compared to stock cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jy7u7/eli5_why_are_f1_racing_car_considered_the_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuta85f",
"cutad7w"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Correct me if I'm wrong but the difficulty come from several areas. Remove all other drivers and cars and you still find it a challenge. You have to bend your mind in a way that says even though I'm going to fast for this corner I should speed up, since the car works on downforce. Tire size and gearing makes for a hard start but impressive top speeds. It's very small inside and infact, the seats are made custom fit for the driver out of a mould he makes by sitting in it the the seat can be formed by foam filling and shaving the seat to fit his contours precisely. You can't stretch or move about. You have several buttons and a track layout with twists and turns. It's overall (from what I've heard) mentally exhausting.",
"You drive too slow and the aerodynamics dont work, you drive too fast and you crash yourself.\nAlso the race is 2 hours long and it's really hard not to make mistakes for that long time.\nSearch for the top gear episode when they try an F1 car, they can't even properly start the car..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4cp6ig
|
how does your body know how to do certain things, like move, when you're asleep.
|
Had trouble sleeping the other night so while reading reddit on my tablet I saw my wife moving to make herself more comfortable, and then she pulled her duvet (we sleep in one bed but have two duvets since we have a tendency to steal it from each other) over her head as she is one to do when cold. Nothing unusual, But then the thought occurs that she is pretty much unconscious. I say pretty much as unsure as being unconscious and asleep are the same thing.
How does her body, detecting that it is cold, move her arms to approximately the right place to grab the duvet, and pull it towards herself in an effort to keep her warm, without waking her up to do it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cp6ig/eli5_how_does_your_body_know_how_to_do_certain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1ka2gw",
"d1keist"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > How does her body, detecting that it is cold, move her arms to approximately the right place to grab the duvet, and pull it towards herself in an effort to keep her warm, without waking her up to do it?\n\nBeing awake or asleep is not a binary, on/off thing. What your wife did is wake up *very* slightly, adjust to get more comfortable, and then go back into deeper sleep. It's a type of wakefulness that is so slight that you generally never even form any memories of it, but it's also not the same as being fully asleep.",
"It mostly has to do with your thalamus. The thalamus is basically the relay center in the brain, taking in sensory information and sending it to the appropriate part of the brain, then taking motor information from the brain and sending it to the appropriate part of the body. \n\nWhen you are asleep, the thalamus sets up a threshold, the minimum amount of stimuli necessary for it to actually send the signal along and not just block it. This is why, for a simple example, a quiet noise won't wake you up, but at a certain volume it will. In terms of sleeping, if the body gets uncomfortable or you are about to fall off the edge, the thalamus can send that information along and have the motor cortex process it and direct the movement on a subconscious level."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
s602p
|
how come we don't feel the earth's rotation? or its revolution around the sun?
|
Forgive me if this is an immensely stupid question. I know (from high school physics) that humans can only experience changes in velocity, and I know we're traveling at a (more or less) constant magnitude of velocity, but it's direction is constantly changing, so shouldn't we feel the rotation? The same way we can feel an airplane turning?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/s602p/eli5_how_come_we_dont_feel_the_earths_rotation_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4bd6pz",
"c4bd8aj",
"c4bdr19",
"c4begje",
"c4bfenb",
"c4bg35t",
"c4bgahj",
"c4bgzgc",
"c4bl4ia"
],
"score": [
2,
41,
33,
2,
8,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The rotation is relatively slow (measured in rotations per time unit, like RPM). Remember that an airplane's rotation happens in a few minutes or even seconds. The Earth? 1 440 full minutes for one rotation. ",
"To some extent, you do actually feel the rotation of the earth on its axis. Because it's spinning, (and you're in a rotating frame of reference), you get a centrifugal force, just like if you were on a merry-go-round. This represents your body trying to keep going in a straight line (which would project off into space). A centrifugal force is always directed away from the centre of the spinning object (centrifugal is Latin centrum (centre) + fugere (flee)).\n\nFrom a physics point of view, the acceleration is given by v^2 / r, so if you're on the equator, the acceleration is around 0.033 m/s^2. This, however, is dwarfed by the acceleration due to gravity, which is around 9.8 m/s^2. (just because it's ELI5, if something is accelerating at 1 m/s^2, its velocity is increasing by 1 m/s every second, so 1 m/s at t=1, 2 m/s at t=2, etc...).\n\nThe net effect of this is to decrease the force of gravity you feel *ever so slightly*. What's more, because you're spinning much faster at the equator than you are at the poles, this effect varies depending on where you are. As yet another factor, the earth bulges around the equator, so the acceleration due to gravity is actually slightly higher at the equator as well.\n\ntl;dr - you can feel it, it's just imperceptible against the background noise",
"From a psychological point of view how would you know what standing on a planet which does not rotate felt like? From the moment we are born we experience the Earth's rotation. We should not also forget the brain is fond of taking 'short-cuts' by ignoring what is deemed unnecessary or unimportant stimuli (for instance, were you consciously aware of the hum coming from your computer before you paid attention to it?) \n\nWithout an adequate frame of reference otherwise and with something as ubiquitous as the Earth's rotation which is present for all but a very few at every moment in time, is it any wonder we fail to notice?",
"Is this why it's impossible to walk in a straight line when you're blindfolded?",
"You would feel it if it stopped.",
"The earth rotates too slowly\\* to be very noticeable. Imagine being on a roundabout that goes so slowly it takes 24 hours to go all the way round. That's how fast the earth rotates.\n\n\\* The velocity of the earth moving in real terms is high, but the change in direction that you would actually feel happens slowly.",
"If a plane turns left you feel your body go to the right. \nIf a plane turns right you feel your body go to the left. \n \nIf you were lying down on your side at the equator with your head to the north and facing east, you can see the sun rise. You know the earth is turning to your \"left\" since you are lying down. \nSo why don't you feel the pull to the right like you do with an airplane? \nYou do, you just don't notice it. The force of gravity is stronger than the force you would feel pulling you out/away from earth from centrifugal force. ",
"And now I feel dizzy...",
"My step dad was the most stupid man alive. He said that the earth spins too fast for us to feel when I asked. Cue three year old me, doing spins in the living room. 'Is this fast enough yet?' *facepalm"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1jgx7p
|
why only alphanumeric characters are allowed for most online account names.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jgx7p/eli5_why_only_alphanumeric_characters_are_allowed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbekdrv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Simplicity, having set limitations make it easier to program/foolproof and certain characters can mean something when programming etc. Remembering the name and then writing it is easier. Last point also goes for people without special characters that other users might have."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
60deeb
|
why do all of the fake sex profiles on facebook, instagram and etc. always spell stuff wrong? is that like a requirement?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60deeb/eli5_why_do_all_of_the_fake_sex_profiles_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df5hywh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Theory one: Written by people who aren't fluent in English.\n\nTheory two: [they want dumb people](_URL_0_) who can't figure out it's a scam. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/why-nigerian-scam-emails-are-obvious-2014-5"
]
] |
||
5kt10d
|
why is it that loud music we enjoy doesn't give us a headache, but music we don't does?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kt10d/eli5_why_is_it_that_loud_music_we_enjoy_doesnt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbqfmjb",
"dbqgtys",
"dbqh2nt",
"dbqinao",
"dbqkm6h",
"dbqkwbl",
"dbql072",
"dbqm6iu",
"dbqnon6",
"dbqnqk6",
"dbqnr5b",
"dbqo5jq",
"dbqpflc",
"dbqpv28",
"dbqpx6e",
"dbqqzpw",
"dbqr0ws",
"dbqrxyu",
"dbqs1w4",
"dbqsue2",
"dbqswfg",
"dbqu7uh",
"dbqumrp",
"dbqup03",
"dbqv1ex",
"dbqv32m",
"dbqvdzh",
"dbqvqoq",
"dbqwfht",
"dbqxusk",
"dbqzhki",
"dbr0w01",
"dbr6nnc",
"dbr8eu3",
"dbrcgl0",
"dbrdnf9",
"dbrnejs"
],
"score": [
33,
3512,
48,
194,
589,
10,
17,
142,
15,
3,
32,
7,
2,
19,
20,
5,
11,
156,
2,
5,
2,
7,
2,
79,
6,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"What?! Really? If it does I would say psychosomatic as pure as it comes.",
"I remember reading something vaguely related to this phenomenon, but sadly I have no source (hopefully someone can back me up with real sources). \nIf I remember correctly, **a part** of enjoying music is being able to relate to the music, being able to predict what comes next. That is why music that is \"in tune\" will sound more pleasant than music out of tune, because we don't listen to much music out of tune and therefore are not accustomed to it. Music that we do not like is generally music we cannot predict well and that doesn't stimulate us. By listening to music that we do not enjoy, we are forcing our brains to work hard at trying to guess what comes next but because it's no good at it, it needs to start from scratch again.\n\nA useful analogy is that of how a (computer) processor predicts what it needs to do: \nFirst it will pick which branch (of multiple possible choices) of execution to expect. \nThen, possibly before it even knows which branch it will *really* take, it will load some relevant information into memory. \nWhen the CPU realizes that it is following another path, it has done a lot of work for nothing and discards the information and starts over from the beginning of the mispredicted branch.\n\nIt's possible that our brains evolved this \"feature\" to reward intelligence (or rather, being good at predicting outcomes), but since I am a software engineer and not a biologist or geneticist, I really wouldn't know.\n\n**Edit** (disclaimer) to clear up some confusion: \nI never stated that our brains *prefer* predictability over spontaneity, just that predictability *plays a part* in it. Indeed many of us seek out unpredictability in music, there is a balance to be had. Likewise, once we can perfectly predict the music we can get bored of it, causing an inverse effect. There are a lot of good points made in the thread of this comment which either further elaborate or provide alternate points of views, all of which may or may not be valid. \n\nI personally think that [this reply provides a good alternate point of view](_URL_1_), [this partly addresses loudness (which I did not touch on)](_URL_2_) and [this drives another alternate point of view, touching on the notion of music appreciation as learned behavior](_URL_0_).\n\nAlso added some formatting.",
"maybe the reason we like the music in the first place is that it doesnt give us a headache.",
"I've actually never experienced this. Must be extremely subtle?\n\nI'll also say that I usually get headaches at ALL loud live shows, even my favorite bands. I always take preemptive ibuprofen (and alcohol).\n\nI am also, apparently, a complete wuss. ",
"It is not clear this is actually true. Overall headaches are related to stress and music you don't like can be stressful, and music you do like can be relaxing.",
"Not sure who tricked you into believing this is true, but wow they sure did a good job. This is undoubtedly NOT true. Yes, sound can be and has been used for torture; although, this is different. Sound can cause discomfort/damage when loud or high pitched. Playing music you dislike cannot give you a headache though. Country music at a moderate level for example will put most people in a bad mood but won't cause physical pain. That is just ridiculous.",
"Like you're 5:\n\nWould you rather have a wall-sized poster of your favorite cartoon character or the most terrifying monster on your wall? \n\nThe volume is not what matters, just like the size of the poster doesn't make much difference other than intensity. What matters is your preferences.",
"Am I the only one who gets a headache both from music I enjoy and music I don't when they're really loud?",
"Do a lot of people get headaches from bad music? I've never heard of this phenomenon before.",
"I get weird tension headaches that only get worse with traditional headache remedies. But listening to loud metal music eases them like nothing else can.\n ",
"Reading through the thread and seeing people get headaches from loud music.\n\nDo people get literal headaches, or figurative ones? I've been to a few concerts, maybe 3, and two of them I didn't enjoy at all. I had decent seats but I never experienced a literal headache, only a figurative one along the lines of \"Let's get out of here.\"",
"Yes! Finally something I can answer: thanks to my biologists in mechanics, this should be simple. \n\nWhen the human whale travels at the speed of time, the loop holes in the quadroplex refrains from settling in. Ever so often, the back flap refrigerates the footprint of the ear hole that receives the audio when from the sheet of sphere. \n\nIn theory, the Lee's you can understand who stands against the front, then anyone who has ever been so far as to even want to go do look more like can fill the ship with fate of hands before dawn. \n\nHope this helps!! ",
"Are we talking about heavy metal? ",
"Music/ sound we do not like increases our cortisol levels which is the hormone involved in stress and waking us up in the morning.\n\nSource: bio major who wrote a scientific literature review about music and cortisol levels during my senior year of college. ",
"Muscle tension. Stress headaches come from furrowing your brow so hard, or tensing your shoulders and neck so much, that they fatigue and spasm. You can relax into the music you like, and avoid the tension headache. \n\nThat being said, anything too loud is going to give you a headache. ",
"Everyone has parents that complained that your loud music was giving them a headache and I never had a problem with music before. Nothing used to give me a headache, I might have hated the music but it didn't give me a headache. But as I've gotten older a lot of the music I used to listen to gives me a headache and songs with asinine and annoying bass like dubstep give me a huge headache. Not sure why, maybe I'm more sensitive in my old age? Not sure.",
"As a person who has made a career out of loud music, I am fairly certain this is 99 percent \"in your head\" as a listener.\n\nWhen you hear something you like, you enjoy it played loud and you enjoy that it becomes your singular focus. When you don't like a song played at the same volume, it's irritating. You can't talk over it and you can't tune it out. The headache thing, is probably one of two things. \n\nOne, it's psychosomatic. Not liking the song makes it irritating and being irritated stresses you out.\n\nTwo, it's because you tune out the headache when you like the song. Perhaps it really is just too loud, but if you love the song, you're not worried about how intense the volume is.\n",
"Loudness may not be the culprit. Have you ever heard a brand new song, and despite it being by one of your favorite artists, you don't really enjoy it that much the first few times you hear it? Its your favorite artist though, so you'll listen to it a few more times and maybe hear it on the radio a time or two. Then one day you realize you actually like the song very much. *Seems weird, right?*\n\nI'll diverge a second. As humans, we generally stick to habits, and any deviation from our typical habits feels unusual and different. It takes a couple (sometimes a lot more) attempts at a new routine to turn it into a habit, and our bodies might respond during that transition period by aches and pains. Telling you, hey this is different, I don't like different. Music works on us the same way, because listening to music is a habit. You hear music you don't like and your brain finds a way to balance it out, or force you to stop it, which is where a headache can occur.\n\nIt turns out that the radio industry has had to create techniques of gradually adjusting listeners to new songs, even if radio executives already know the song is going to be a hit. The challenge is to prevent you from changing the radio channel (or turning it off) when you hear a new song that you don't quite like right away. One way to do this is by sticking the new song in between two already popular and well liked ones. You don't immediately notice that this unfamiliar new song is playing because you just heard one you really like. What happens by the time you notice the new song playing? It ends and another popular song comes back on. After hearing the new song a few times, even if you weren't all that focused on it, your brain is more familiar with it. Have this happen a few more times and you might soon find that you really like the song because your brain got \n\nI first read about this in a book called \"The Power of Habit\" by Charles Duhigg, which explores our habits in general, including how they can be developed or changed, and uses music as an example at times. One example in the book is \"Hey Ya\" by Outkast. It became an incredibly popular song, but at first radio listeners literally hated it. To make people like it, the song was first squeezed between two already popular ones and eventually it reached the top spot on Billboard for 8 weeks.\n\n[Scroll down to the \"Excerpt From the Book\" section to see some of the original text](_URL_0_)\n\n[Another article that discusses the Hey Ya situation and references The Power of Habit](_URL_1_)\n\nEdit: I want to summarize 2 other situations that have been asked in comments.\n\n1. *Why do I dislike music I've listened to constantly, such as at work? My brain knows what to expect right?*\n\nSuppose you like country music and hate heavy metal, but your jerk of a coworker always plays his metal too loud. You could hear his music over and over again but odds are that you won't like it ever. Simply put: you don't like metal, you like country. You respond positively to country and metal is nothing like it, so your brain forms no connections between the two.\n\n2. *What about a brand new song that I instantly fell in love with? Even if the artist is someone I've never heard of?*\n\nIt's probably pretty similar to something else you've heard before, musically speaking. The song's beat, the artists' voices, the rhythm, etc. something about the music itself was noticed by the brain and connected to other songs you like. What's the thing about Nickelback songs? They all sound pretty similar, and most people that like one of their songs (crazy, I know) tend to like most of their music.",
"Happiness hormones called serotonin are released when you hear things you like, which numbs pain and creates joy :')\n\nWhich is also why we don't feel the headache until AFTER the concert!",
"Hmmm. This is not a thing with which I am familiar. Loud music (of any type) gives you a headache? ",
"Because if I hate a song, I subconsiously try to wrap my head around the idea that somebody said, \"Yeah, that's good, lets do that.\", with no luck ever.",
"I see what you're saying but I have to disagree. Most of the music I hate is really predictable(as is a lot of music that I like). Also, there are many instances when there is a sudden key, riff, etc. change that is completely unexpected but ends up being extremely enjoyable.",
"i’ve never LITERALLY gotten a headache as a result of something..... i thought that was a figure of speech.",
"Studying music in university. I've never experienced this, am unsatisfied with the answers and am wondering if people can give more details about their experiences. Does the headache linger or go away right when the music is turned off? Is it a consistent thing? For whom is it a volume thing and who is effected by quiet music? Also about your histories with music. Are you big fans of specific kinds of music? Does anyone get a headache from music they mildly dislike? Do you do a particularly careful job choosing what you listen to?\n\nAlso if you think you have boring answers to all these, I'd still appreciate answers, just so we have a better idea of what's normal instead of just people with controversial opinions. Thanks.",
"Maybe music we likes gives us an adrenaline rush that drowns out the discomfort of it being \"too loud\"? ",
"You don't like things you can't comprehend. Like learning something tough tend to make you (in extension, your brain) go AGHH... now put that on loud speakers and you get the same result. Music is information too and works the same way.",
"Tbh sometimes I just say it's giving me a headache if it's music I don't want to listen to 😈",
"Bad music gives you headaches? Never heard that before ",
"I consider myself quite the music fan. I have vinyl albums, I've had my share of loud stereos in both my house and vehicles, I played in a few loud bands from about 17-25. I'm 40 now btw....these days all music that is very loud gives me a headache. No matter how much I like it....I wonder if my 20 year old self would agree? ",
"Do people literally get a headache from loud music they don't enjoy? I always thought that was just a figure of speech meaning it's loud and bad. ",
"This is a thing? I get headaches from any kind of loud music regardless of how much I like it. That's why I rarely go to concerts and clubs. The bass pounding inside my body is the worst. But then again, I also tend to get headaches after going to the cinema or the theatre as well. Loud stuff in the dark with blinding lights just don't do it for me.",
"I would expect it relates to how tones or chords resonate within your skull. Everybodies skull is different. I cannot stand mandolins for this exact reason.",
"Loud music of any kind will eventually give you a headache whether you like it or not, it's just that \"it gives me a headache\" is a frequent complaint made by whiny people who should probably be phased out.",
"Familiar music has a few cool benefits. I figured out a while back that when you're driving a long road trip, to keep yourself more alert, listen to music with lyrics you know. Even if you don't sing a long, it seems like your brain pays more attention to the music and stays more active. ",
"Loud music which you do not enjoy is an irritant you cannot \"turn off.\" This increases your stress level. Part of the physiological response to stress is the tightening of the muscles of the upper back and neck, which produce a tension headache.\n\nIt's not the music, it's the unhappiness produced in response to it.",
"Like you're 5: If you enjoy eating applesauce, you know what it is going to taste like and are ready for it. If you're ready for applesauce and someone gives you peas, your brain has a \"hey, wait a second\" moment because it couldn't anticipate the taste and has to rework a lot of things in a small fraction of a second. Your brain doesn't like doing that, so it shows you that in the form of a headache.",
"How come when I hear music in my house I love it but when I hear my neighbors music it just pisses me off? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kt10d/eli5_why_is_it_that_loud_music_we_enjoy_doesnt/dbr5iw7/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kt10d/eli5_why_is_it_that_loud_music_we_enjoy_doesnt/dbr8758/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kt10d/eli5_why_is_it_that_loud_music_we_enjoy_doesnt/dbr7he1/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.hyperink.com/Quicklet-On-Charles-Duhiggs-The-Power-Of-Habit-Why-We-Do-What-We-Do-In-Life-And-Business-b1813",
"http://wordbasket.blogspot.com/2014/12/who-killed-good-music.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3cu0ai
|
why are reddit url's caps sensitive when most other websites aren't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cu0ai/eli5_why_are_reddit_urls_caps_sensitive_when_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csyyg5b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's fairly common for non-human-readable segments of a URL to be case sensitive since that allows you to fit more data into fewer characters. You aren't trying to make it easy for someone to type \"3cu0ai\", so you may as well use something short and hard to type instead of something long and almost as hard to type.\n\nNote that if Reddit (or YouTube, or Google, or any number of other companies) decides to use a 6 character code and they limit themselves to a-z (lowercase) and 0-9 then they have about 2 billion possible addresses they can use ((26+10)^(6)). This may seem like a lot, but it's small enough that huge sites need to consider it. They don't want people randomly stumbling on existing pages because of a mistyped URL. If they extend to the ability to use A-Z as well then they have 56.8 billion possible addresses. This is better for something like Reddit, but YouTube takes it a step further and uses 11 characters for 52 quintillion possibilities. At that level it is highly unlikely that anyone will randomly stumble across a video just by typing in random gibberish. This can be double useful for a site like YouTube that allows people to share unlisted postings by passing around an obscure URL. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5neg0u
|
why do tired eyes look sunken and dark?
|
Like the skin under our eyes sometimes look sunken in and dark or purple when we are very tired.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5neg0u/eli5_why_do_tired_eyes_look_sunken_and_dark/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcaw2kj"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text": [
"When you get tired, certain hormones that restrict blood, and keep you awake, like epinephrine and cortisol are reduced in your blood, and that can cause blood to accumulate in the eye area, the skin on/around your eyelids is much thinner than most of the rest of your body, so the blood can cause puffiness and show up dark in that area. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
e3o1iv
|
what is the science behind a stroke and how exactly is your brain affected?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e3o1iv/eli5_what_is_the_science_behind_a_stroke_and_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9428ys"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Okay, so blood gets pumped by your heart, and it goes all over your body, giving the oxygen the cells in your body need to work. Arteries are the blood vessels, like little tubes, that bring blood from your heart to the rest of your body, and veins are the blood vessels that bring the blood back to your heart, where new oxygen from your lungs will get added to it. \n\n\nA stroke is when a blood vessel in your brain gets clogged or damaged. When that happens, part of your brain stops getting the oxygen it needs to work. Your brain cells start dying. If the clogged blood vessel can't be fixed soon, so that those cells that get oxygen again, it may result in permanent brain damage or death. \n\n\nThe clogs can be caused by fat in your blood stream building up, creating layers that coat the inside of your arteries and veins. If a tiny chunk of that fat breaks off, it can clog the arteries or veins. \n\n\nThis is roughly the same way a heart attack works, except that the clog is in the heart rather than the brain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7j0wkr
|
if hubble telescope is the greatest and most successful in discoveries but was launched in 1990.
|
If Hubble telescope is the greatest and most successful in discoveries but was launched in 1990. Why wouldn't we build a telescope with latest technology which would be more successful and help us understanding world fast?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7j0wkr/eli5_if_hubble_telescope_is_the_greatest_and_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dr2thtz",
"dr2ti6j",
"dr2tijl",
"dr2ulc0",
"dr2wnaj"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We are! For instance, the [James Webb](_URL_0_) telescope is currently supposed to launch in 2019. And there are others in the works as well.",
"It takes a long time and a lot of money to develop and launch space telescopes like this, especially if you set out to radically improve on existing designs. The James Webb telescope is in development and will be launched in 2019.\n\n_URL_0_",
"We are. NASA is currently building the James Webb space telescope, scheduled to launch in spring 2019.\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"Correct me if I'm wrong. I see a lot of people referring to the James Webb telescope but I thought this was an infra-red telescope and not meant for direct imaging like the Hubble Space Telescope? Or does it have a possibility for direct imaging as well?",
"Ground based telescope technology has improved.\n\nThe main advantage of hubble was the fact it is above the atmosphere so that the swirling air in the atmosphere can't distort the image. Modern active corrective optics are now so good that they are almost as good as being in space. \n\nThe advantage of being on the ground is that you can build bigger mirrors - bigger mirrors capture more light and can see fainter objects with greater detail. It is also much cheaper and easier to upgrade. Combined with advanced active optics, a modern ground based telescope could do much of the visible light imaging that the Hubble telescope could do at a fraction of the cost.\n\nThe role for new space telescopes is not for better quality visible light images, but for images of light to which the atmosphere is opaque. For example, the atmosphere is opaque to a lot of infrared light, but IR images are very interesting scientifically. If you want an infrared telescope it has to be in space - and this was specifically what the James Webb space telescope has been designed for. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4cogr4
|
why is it that, in order to target fat in cardio workouts, i'm told to do low intensity training?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cogr4/eli5_why_is_it_that_in_order_to_target_fat_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1k25kq",
"d1k2cwz"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Workouts at different levels of intensity place different demands on your body's energy supply system. Endurance sports train your body to use fat as an energy source because it is the most plentiful. High-intensity exercise relies on sugars stored in your muscles called glycogen. Most people don't have more than 1.5 hours worth of glycogen on a given day. Sugar can be used to replace this while working out, which is why we have sports drinks.",
"So you can do it longer.\n\nA higher intensity workout will burn more calories per minute, but you won't be able to keep it up as long. 30 minutes of low to moderate exercise will burn more than 15 minutes of more intense but unsustainable exercise."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
bae6vf
|
why is the shadow that the moon casts on earth smaller than the moon itself and why can’t we replicate that on a smaller scale?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bae6vf/eli5_why_is_the_shadow_that_the_moon_casts_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekawl3s",
"ekawlpu",
"ekayxbr"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I assume you are talking about the shadow the moon casts on earth like an eclipse. We can replicate it, for example In a dark room take out your phone flashlight and point it at a wall. Now put your fist in between the light and the wall. Move your fist closer to the light and the shadow gets larger, move your fist away from the light and your shadow gets smaller. When your fist is right against the wall, your shadow is slightly smaller than your fist. Some light got around your fist and lit up the edges. \n\nThe distances between the light source also have have a lot to do with it since the sun is so much further away from the earth (the wall) than your fist(moon) is from the wall.\n\nI hope that made sense, its 1:20 am here and my wife just asked why I was making shadows with my phone light.",
"The diameter of the sun is so large that it doesn’t act as a single source of light. Even from those distances. This creates regions of partial shade and a circle of totality on the earth.",
"It is trivial to replicate. The only requirement is that the light source is larger then the object that create the shadow. You can use any fluorescent tube light you have at home do do that.\n\nThe sun and the moon have the same apparent size in the sky but the sun is many times larger then the moon it is just at a greater distance.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThere are two types of a shadows in a solar eclipse on earth. The Umbra and the penumbra. The umbra is where all light from the sun is blocked out and it can be smaller then the moon. The penumbra is where some light is blocked out from the moon and it is larger then the moon. You see the same effect when you create a shadow at home with a large light source like a fluorescent tube light. The umbra will be smaller then the object but the penumbra will be larger.\n\nhow large part of the penumbra the umbra is depend in the relative size of the object and the source of light and the distances. The smaller the light source the larger the umbra is. If the light is a point source the both is the same size. You can in many situation consider a regular lamp a point source and then the umbra will always be larger the the object.\n\nLook at this image for a illustration. [_URL_0_](_URL_1_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Geometry\\_of\\_a\\_Total\\_Solar\\_Eclipse.svg/1280px-Geometry\\_of\\_a\\_Total\\_Solar\\_Eclipse.svg.png",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Geometry_of_a_Total_Solar_Eclipse.svg/1280px-Geometry_of_a_Total_Solar_Eclipse.svg.png"
]
] |
||
2b7sde
|
why do i need to log on to public free wifi?
|
I'm staying in a hotel without password protected wifi. Just log on, accept their terms and conditions, and you're on. Every few hours, my connection goes out and I have to bring up a web page and re-accept that page. Is this just a legal ass-covering thing? Or is there anything happening technologically that they're doing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b7sde/eli5_why_do_i_need_to_log_on_to_public_free_wifi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj2m3do"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes, and yes. It is a CYA thing with respect to any illegal behavior you may engage in while on their system. It is set up to disconnect you from the network after X period of time (X is defined by the network owner), at which point you renew the IP address you were assigned the first time you connected with their network DHCP upon recommitting to the legal disclaimers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
30fehx
|
why does my car a/c sometimes smell like ass?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30fehx/eli5_why_does_my_car_ac_sometimes_smell_like_ass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cprwy81",
"cprxoke",
"cprxqnr",
"cprxr9z",
"cpry8eo",
"cpryerm",
"cprzhgv",
"cprzxkq"
],
"score": [
25,
10,
2,
3,
19,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Maybe it's circulating air from the inside of your car.",
"Could be a couple of reasons\n\n- Stale air in the vent\n\n- Bad filter\n\n- Someone shit in your vent",
"The same reason your neighbor's cat has been missing.",
"I was told by someone that the coolant that the a/c\n molds when you stop the a/c. When you start you fans up again, its the mold that you're breathing and smelling.\n\nWas also told that this doesn't apply to all cars, some cars use a different method of a/c.\n\nActually found sauce :\n_URL_0_",
"Air conditioners create water as a byproduct when the hot air goes over the cold coil. This normally isn't a problem as the water is drained out underneath the car. When the drain plugs, due to dust or other foreign objects, the water doesn't drain and sits, and eventually becomes moldy. The mold and/or bacteria is what you are smelling.\n\nSource: I work on heating and air conditioning for a living. \n\n I do believe Toyota dealerships have an awesome kit you can purchase or have them use to fix your problem. ",
"Change your cabin filter, usually in the glovebox.\nOtherwise, you should change your undies.",
"Water from warm air precipitates onto the cooling fins as the air is cooled. This large surface area is ideal for fungal and bacteria growth. You can avoid it by turning of your ac for a few minutes before turning off the vehicle, but keep circulating air. The circulating air will help dry and warm fins. \n\nAlso, you can try a Lysol type spray in your vent intake, let the vent circulate with widows open when you do this.\n",
"Many replies explains it. It's the condensation that builds up on your evaporator( like the condensation that builds around a glass of icy water). While this water dries up, bacterias and mold stick to it and grow with the next drive( much like a shower head that isn't cleaned often enough.\n\n Buy a can of lysol aerosol, start the car with A/C and fan at maximum. remove the cabin filter and spray a lot of it where the air inlet is( it's usually below the wipers at the bottom of the windshield. Just spray where the fan makes the most noise from outside) put back cabin filter.\n\n\nRepeat every week and soon enough it will be gone. \n\n\nIf you have a car without automatic climate control, the way to prevent this is to turn off the A/C and blow your fan at maximum 1 minute before shutting the car off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://m.carsdirect.com/car-maintenance/weird-car-air-conditioner-smell-what-it-means-and-how-to-fix-it"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2r0jwb
|
- what's the difference between someone who society and the justice system labels a "serial killer" and someone who murders in the name of their gang or organization?
|
So, I've spent the last few hours binge-watching SOA, and it occurs to me that most, if not all, the principals in the show (Jax Teller, Tigg, etc) would and could be considered serial killers. And yes, I realize this is fantasy, television, but these gangland enforcers exist IRL. So. What separates a Serial Killer from a murderer/enforcer? Thanks.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r0jwb/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_someone_who/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnb93qq",
"cnb9fl3",
"cnb9la2"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"A serial killer kills f because it feels good or they enjoy it, a gangland enforcer kills because his (almost always his) boss asks him to and gives him a lot of pocket money.",
"Technically a mob hitman can be classified as a serial killer, at least by FBI guidelines. They classify a serial killer as someone who kills 3 or more people with a cool down period between each killing. There are people that have issues with this classification because of both the mob thing, and of course people who exhibit all the signs of a serial killer, but they can't be classified as one because they are caught before their third kill. Conversly, people that kill a lot of people at once are classified as mass muderers, like people who unload a machine gun into a crowded Mcdonalds, even if they have many of the same sociopathic tenancies of serial killers. There's also spree killers, who kill people of a short period of time with no cool down period in between, like a person on a road trip killing people at every rest stop.",
"Generally, a serial killer usually picks victims at random although stalking for a period of time prior to the killing is sometimes done. In contrast, a mob hit man usually knows, or knows of, the victim he is assigned to kill. Maybe too simple an explanation but that's the way I've always thought of it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
47lqrv
|
how is it possible for stocks to drastically change in value over the course of minutes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47lqrv/eli5_how_is_it_possible_for_stocks_to_drastically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0dtl1d",
"d0dvc9y"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Say you go to the farmer's market and there are 3 farmers selling apples. Farmer #1 has two apples and is selling them for $1.00 each, #2 has two apples and is selling for $1.25 each, and #3 has ten apples and is selling for $1.50 each. You buy one apple and your friend buys one apple, both from the cheapest option, Farmer #1. With both of the $1.00 apples already purchased, now the only available price for apples has gone from $1.00 to $1.25. If someone buys those two apples, the price will go up to $1.50. So the price of apples can change very quickly at the market, depending on how many apples are for sale by any farmer, and how many people want to buy those apples.",
"Lets use two extreme examples.\n\n > say a company is worth 2 billion dollars. They give out no dividends, investors expect growth to exactly match inflation, no one ever speculates on its worth, its entire net worth is in outstanding stocks, They produce no goods, etc etc. Everyone has perfect knowledge of this company.\n \n > They are currently in a trial and if guilty will face a 1 billion dollar fine. Equally likely verdicts of guilty/innocent.\n\n > Now a smart man would say that once the court case was announced the company immediately went from being worth 2 billion to 1.5 billion dollars (50% chance of being worth 1 billion, 50% chance of being worth 2 billion). There are 100 million shares, so each share drops from being worth to 20 dollars each to being worth 15 dollars in the short time it takes the news of the court case being opened to reach investors.\n\n > Now two verdicts. Innocent, no fine: shares rapidly rise to 20 dollars.\n\n > Guilty and fined: Shares drop to 10 dollars.\n\nThat is one way for shares to rise/fall drastically. Quarterly earning reports, court cases, disaster, damages, rival companies failing, a tax break for that industry, etc will all have people realize that the company is now worth more/less than its current price. If the reports are significantly different than what was expected, prices rise or fall rapidly (since everyone, and big computers now, are usually waiting on the news it can happens in milliseconds or minutes). \n\nCase two, the more interesting one.\n\n > A company is worth 1000 dollars. They ferry people from the USA to Britain. They have 1000 shares, worth 1 dollar each. There are only 2000 people who can buy/sell these shares, and 1000 of them own 1 share at any one time. At any time there are about 200 people interested in buying stocks, and 200 people interesting in selling stocks, and the sales are at roughly market price of 1$. If a seller tries to sell at more than 1$, no one is really interested because they can find other buyers. Same for buyers trying to get it for less than 1$, the sellers can find other buyers.\n\n > A woman is stabbed on one of their boats, making national headlines. \n\n > The 1000 people who own shares start panicking. No one is going to want to use this service anymore! Now 500 people at any one time would be happy to sell their single share of this company at 1$. \n\n > The 200 people who wanted to buy stocks suddenly think, screw this, I don't want to take a risk on this company anymore. Only 25 people at a time still want shares at 1$.\n\n > Now 500 people want to sell their stock, but only 25 of them will actually get to sell them. In a panic, one of them shouts \"I'll sell it for 97 cents!\".\n\n > About 25 people who wouldn't buy at 1$ thinks, well, I'd buy it for 97 cents... and one guy buys this brave man's stock. Seeing this, the sellers realize they can get 97 cents instead of a dollar to sell their stock, and of the 500 sellers, only 400 are now willing to sell. The 25 people who would buy at 1$ think \"screw that!\" and will now only buy for 97 cents. Since there are still 400 people selling at a time and 50 people buying, all trades occur at 97 cents. The \"stock price\" people associate with this company now drops from 97 cents from one dollar. But we still have 400 people selling at one time and only 50 people buying. Sellers are still desperate.\n\n > So again, a brave but desperate woman, who is certain this stock is doomed, shouts \"I'll sell it for only 88 cents\". About a hundred people say \"I'll take it!\" and one of them makes the deal.\n\n > seeing all these interested people, the sellers who aren't getting lucky at 97 cents start selling between 97 and 88 cents, and eventually, just as before, everyone is trading at 88 cents. At 88 cents only about 225 people are selling stocks, and about 150 people are buying stocks.\n\n > Once again someone sells for lower, until only 175 people are selling and 175 people are buying at any one time. Everyone is now trading at 85 cents. Now no seller has much incentive to raise the price, since they can all just barely find buyers. Buyers have no incentive to haggle for less, since they are only barely able to find a seller. \n \n > All of this happens in the space of 2-3 minutes, and the company value has gone from 1 dollar to 85 cents, a 15% drop. Maybe that stabbing actually doesn't decrease their sales at all, and as people realize it, more people want it at 85 cents and the price slowly is driven back up to 1 dollar for the reversed supply/demand reasons as before.\n\n\nSo the best answer I can give is that there are two dominant forces in stock prices. News, and speculation (often driven by news). \n\nBig news, such as quarterly earnings, fines, etc, will change what people can calculate a company is worth, and the stock will change based on that. \n\nBut speculation will also drive stock prices by shifting supply and demand. If investors BELIEVE a company will do better/worse, they'll be willing to purchase or sell their stocks based on those prices, and not their actual worth. They will speculate, and hedge their bets. They might think a company worth 8$ is actually shortly going to be worth 10 bucks a share, and so are willing to buy it at up to 9 dollars a share. People see the price increasing and think \"oh boy, this stock is a winner, it's probably worth 11 dollars, I'll buy it at 10. The stock increases and heck, its probably worth 15 bucks, I'll buy it at 12, this thing is only going to keep going up! That can drive rapid increases in stock prices because people speculate on speculations. That is also why you can see a rapid \"correction\". Either factual news/earnings destroys people's misconceptions on misconceptions on misconceptions, which can lead to rapid crashes because instead of just going from bloated speculation - > real value, they go from bloated speculation - > news hits - > way undervalue fear speculation. Or people (computers) just start to dump stocks which makes people speculate it will fall more which makes them sell which makes people keep speculating and eventually the company crashes and is grossly undervalued.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
lhfv5
|
why when i pee does the stream sometimes criss cross like an hour glass shape?
|
Instead of a straight stream, it criss crosses (towards the beginning) and looks like an hour glass or DNA strand.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lhfv5/eli5_why_when_i_pee_does_the_stream_sometimes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2sps2f",
"c2spsln",
"c2sq5yl",
"c2sps2f",
"c2spsln",
"c2sq5yl"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
6,
11,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"This is typical way water exits an expandable slit at a specific velocity.\n\nI would theorize the sides are holding the stream flat and the elasticity is pushing it in on top and bottom which is slightly bending the top and bottom of the streams to a center point roughly an inch or so out, where they collided. The collision of those two parts of the stream mixed with the static ejection of the middle part cause a point of collision that ends up putting a spin on it. As it continues it doesnt have the velocity to recreate this collision again so eventually the next \"fan\" part of the stream begins to produce a more cylindrical stream as less of it's speed is from the initial ejection and more from the exertion of gravity on it.\n\nAs an added pee fun bonus game: Go some place high that you can pee off of after drinking lots and lots of water so you have a lot built-up. Then flex you muscles to begin the flow. Once a nice steady stream has been started do your best to relax your muscles. The natural fluid cohesion at this point takes over and gravity pulling down on the stream will actually start \"pulling\" the urine out of your body. If you concentrate you can actually feel this effect.",
"The Split Shooter - your underroos got bunched up or were too tight, so your pee pee head was squished. Not enough to hurt, but enough to misshape the head for a little while. Don't worry, your pee pee head knows what shape it should be and will spring back to that shape After a few seconds",
"[The inside of the urethra has a spiral groove (like rifling in a gun barrel), which makes the urine flow in a narrow stream.](_URL_0_)\n\n*This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fightin', this is for fun.*",
"This is typical way water exits an expandable slit at a specific velocity.\n\nI would theorize the sides are holding the stream flat and the elasticity is pushing it in on top and bottom which is slightly bending the top and bottom of the streams to a center point roughly an inch or so out, where they collided. The collision of those two parts of the stream mixed with the static ejection of the middle part cause a point of collision that ends up putting a spin on it. As it continues it doesnt have the velocity to recreate this collision again so eventually the next \"fan\" part of the stream begins to produce a more cylindrical stream as less of it's speed is from the initial ejection and more from the exertion of gravity on it.\n\nAs an added pee fun bonus game: Go some place high that you can pee off of after drinking lots and lots of water so you have a lot built-up. Then flex you muscles to begin the flow. Once a nice steady stream has been started do your best to relax your muscles. The natural fluid cohesion at this point takes over and gravity pulling down on the stream will actually start \"pulling\" the urine out of your body. If you concentrate you can actually feel this effect.",
"The Split Shooter - your underroos got bunched up or were too tight, so your pee pee head was squished. Not enough to hurt, but enough to misshape the head for a little while. Don't worry, your pee pee head knows what shape it should be and will spring back to that shape After a few seconds",
"[The inside of the urethra has a spiral groove (like rifling in a gun barrel), which makes the urine flow in a narrow stream.](_URL_0_)\n\n*This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fightin', this is for fun.*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.urethralsurgery.com/urethra.asp"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.urethralsurgery.com/urethra.asp"
]
] |
|
3p0s9e
|
why can't the hubble space telescope capture images of planet surfaces?
|
If the Hubble telescope can capture galaxies far far away, why can it not capture images of planet surfaces, increasing our chances of finding alien life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p0s9e/eli5_why_cant_the_hubble_space_telescope_capture/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw24scd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Galaxies are really, really big.\n\nAs it turns out this is all mathematically determined:\n\n > The ability for a telescope to resolve an object is, as you’d expect, directly related to the size of the mirror or lens. There is a simple relationship between mirror size and resolving power: R = 11.6 / D. What does this mean?\n\n > First, R = the angular size of the object in arcseconds. An arcsecond is a measure of angular size (how big an object appears to be — if two objects are the same physical size, the one farther away will appear smaller, and have a smaller angular size). There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree, and to give you an idea of how small a measure this is, the Moon is about 0.5 degrees = 1800 arcseconds across.\n\n > D is the diameter of the mirror in centimeters. Hubble’s mirror is 2.4 meters = 240 centimeters across. Plugging that into the formula, we see that Hubble’s resolution is 11.6 / 240 = 0.05 arcseconds. That’s an incredibly small size; a human would have to be nearly 8000 kilometers (4900 miles) away to be 0.05 arcseconds in size!\n\nSo let's say you want to see stuff on the moon (which is relatively close compared to planets):\n\n > So let’s look at our lunar descent stage. It’s 4 meters across, but 400,000,000 meters away. That gives it an angular size of (4/400,000,000) x 206265 = 0.002 arcseconds.\n\n > Hey, wait a sec! Hubble’s resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble’s resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble’s resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble. [SOURCE](_URL_0_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/"
]
] |
|
5pouyl
|
how does a torch shine through my hand?
|
If I press a torch against my hand it glows red. Normally we appear to be opaque, so how does this work? Is the light refracting around inside my hand? How does the light go through us?
Some sub questions:
If the light was bright enough could you press it against your back to make your belly glow? Or other thicker parts of the body like your thigh?
Does this mean to a certain very limited extent light goes into us all the time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pouyl/eli5_how_does_a_torch_shine_through_my_hand/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcsql3g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Light does go into us all the time. If you are light skinned like me your skin will darken with more sunlight over a few weeks. The ultraviolet part of sunlight may damage our skin cells. We could get skin cancer.\n\nThere are compounds in your blood which will bleach out with a lot of sunlight. Your blood supplies your skin. Mostly this does not matter. But a pregnant woman in the tropics might get so much sunlight she loses compounds necessary for a healthy birth. Women with darker skin have more successful births in the tropics. Eventually the whole population in the tropics becomes dark skinned. It takes a few thousand years.\n\nThat funny pincher thing they put on your finger measures the oxygenation of your blood, your pulsox, it also counts your pulse. This is done with light.\n\nA light bright enough to make your belly glow would overheat you.\n\nYes the light does refract around bouncing off things. That is why it comes out red. Red reflects more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
79078s
|
how do we get tanks and other heavy ground-based vehicles to other countries?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/79078s/eli5_how_do_we_get_tanks_and_other_heavy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"doy3oqz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's a few ways.\n\nFirst, the strategic lift planes (C-7, C-5 etc.) of your Air Force _can_ carry AFVs and MBTs, but only 2-3 at a time due to weight. So this isn't ideal. But if you need a mechanized brigade < over there > < TOMORROW > , it could be done. A lot of people would lose their weekend and a lot of sleep to make it happen, but it could be done.\n\nWhile you _can_ drop an M1 or a Bradley out the back of one of these aircraft, its usually not recommended. Better use a runway. Which means you need troops on the ground to secure the landing airfield and surrounding area. Nothing makes your day worse than on short final to your destination with a load of heavy tanks and having someone take a pot shot at you with a Stinger.\n\nNext most ideal is forward staged Marine Expeditionary Units on board naval vessels like LHAs (which are like aircraft carriers but have some amphibious capability), usually the strike group's flagship, with helicopters and STOL aircraft instead of fighters, followed by an LSD and an LPD, both ships with amphibious capabilities but can store a shit ton of AFVs and MBTs and a lot of Marines. They can put a serious amount of badass on a beach or in your base fucking with your doodz before you can sneeze.\n\nIf the fight looks like its going to be prolonged and we need _moar_ armor battalions over there, we call in the USNS or Military Sealift Command. Thats like a whole separate navy of specialized ships, crewed by civilians (with a few navy personnel) on constant standby to load up tanks here, and take them < there > . There's fleet oilers and replenishment ships, transports etc. There's high speed catamarans, you name it. \n\nFor even longer term fights, the pentagon contracts out to the private sector like everyone else. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
25hetj
|
how ddo you "digitally remaster" music or films?
|
*do
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25hetj/eli5how_ddo_you_digitally_remaster_music_or_films/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chh6jcg",
"chh8uuv"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think about it sort of like if you were to take an old physical photo, scan it, and #filter the shit out of it.",
"With film, you typically start with the original film real which is scanned into a computer. Since it's old, there will probably be dust and specks on the frame as well as faded colors. Digital remastering is just the process of of going through and fixing those problems with a computer. Really good transfers will typically do a photoshop style fix for individual frames that need work, but it's more common to use automatic tools like DNR(digital noise reduction). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2o0k3x
|
are us states more like a collection of different countries, what sovereignty does a state actually have?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o0k3x/eli5_are_us_states_more_like_a_collection_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmilko8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are no borders between states (as in, border crossings) and they all fall under federal law. I'm free to travel to any state I wish and stay as long as I please. States make their own laws (as long as it doesn't conflict with federal laws.) For example a state deciding to legalize marijuana or set limits on the sale of alcohol, or age of consent... These probably aren't the most important state laws, but they're the most discussed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3edvi1
|
cosplay; is it just done for an event? does one wear their outfit on multiple, random occasions? is it just made for the photos?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3edvi1/eli5_cosplay_is_it_just_done_for_an_event_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctdznl5",
"ctdzrzt",
"cte075c",
"cte0g3b"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's usually for a convention, which will run for several days. Some people wear the same costume to multiple conventions, others make a new one for each one. ",
"I cosplay and can only speak for myself and my cosplay friends.\n\nWe cosplay only for events... conventions, festivals, etc. I normally don't show up at work as Tuxedo Mask. I do know some friends who occasionally wear a colorful wig when walking about.\n\nThe really hardcore cosplayers make at least one new cosplay per con. I usually wear a new one once a year.\n\nWhile I do get a lot of pictures taken of me, I cosplay to find other people at the con who share my liking to the character and the show. It's like when I go to a Warriors game, I wear my Warriors shirt, but I haven't gone as far as painting my body the team colors and wearing viking horns.\n\n\n\n",
"There are events that you go to. There are dozens of major conventions through the year, many comic book shops have events, when major films debut they often hire cosplayers to attend the event, there are random parties, and there is Halloween. Virtually all cosplayers keep a collection of their costumes to choose from for these different events.",
"Hardcore cosplayers sometimes travel to multiple events a year, so they don't just wear it once and toss it. Most of the hardcore cosplayers I know actually have multiple costumes, and they wear a different one each day for a 3-day convention, for example.\n\nI would imagine some of them reuse their costume or parts of it for Halloween or whatnot, but they don't wear it on regular days.\n\nIt's mostly made for photos. Dedicated cosplayers will do a professional photo shoot with each of their costumes. But also, they are there to enjoy the convention, and part of that is random people coming up to you to take photos with you. It makes people happy, so its fun to cosplay. \n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8t4s7e
|
why do ceiling fans make less noise than normal fans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8t4s7e/eli5_why_do_ceiling_fans_make_less_noise_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e14qst2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"For one, ceiling fans are generally moving a lot slower which generates less noise. Turn a ceiling fan up to high and it will make more sound\n\nAlso, since ceiling fans are intended to be a permanent fixture to a room, the better quality ones use larger better quality motors than \"normal fans\", which run with less sound. The shape of the blades can also affect how much noise they make"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3l4l0q
|
who actually has a problem with women breastfeeding in public and why?
|
Also, is there some survey that shows it was mostly women complaining about it or do both genders seem to have an equal problem with it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l4l0q/eli5_who_actually_has_a_problem_with_women/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv358af",
"cv36wbu",
"cv3bnuw",
"cv3hky5",
"cv3n8u5"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
7,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Not everyone is comfortable with it, but that's because of a general American stigma against nudity. The people actually complaining about it are particularly prudish busybodies and \"moral guardians\". ",
"UK based and currently breastfeeding my youngest (literally, it's 5.30am and I Reddit to pass the time in the wee small hours). I breastfed my eldest too and the only people to outright ask me to stop we're female. Old, like 80yo each time so I put it down to a generational rather than gender thing. I just said \"thanks for your opinion but I have the right to do it where I like\". In the UK you may breastfeed anywhere and no one can stop you - we have a lot of flash mob protests where if a Mum has been asked to cover up in a particular restaurant hundreds of breastfeeding mums turn up the next day and all feed together in the restaurant to shame the proprietor. I seem to remember a Gordon Ramsey restaurant was hit not so long ago.\nOn a side note breastfeeding is scientifically amazing, I don't wanna go into a massive post about it as that not what OP was asking but it blows my mind how human nursing has so many benefits to both mum and baby. ",
"I dont have an issue with public breastfeeding as long as the women makes it discreate as possible. Dont just fling your boob out with your nipple showing. If the US wants it to be accepted, then they need to get rid of the law that states that showing nipple in public is illegal. They also need to start kids at a very young age that showing your breast in public for breastfeeding is okay. I grew up in a Christian home where modesty was the answer. I am pretty far from that now and wear whatever I want. I understand there is not always a place to go or a baby that dosent want to be covered. I get that. But please still be respectful to other people and not make a giant scene. ",
"I am one of those women who used to feel uncomfortable around breastfeeding mothers. I think some conservative, socially anxious part of me unconsciously assumed they were doing it to prove a point, and that no one \"needed\" to breastfeed in public, there must always be some kind of alternatve. (What that would be, I don't know - never thought far enough in to get a logical conclusion there.) I never ever would have said anything, I'd just be uncomfortable and not know where to look.\n\nWell. Now I am a breastfeeding mother, and spent a good portion of my maternity leave at home, partially because I'm just not comfortable/confident nursing in public. I so desperately want to be. It is frustrating knowing that I would draw awkward attention of people who think the way I used to. I just want to go places and do things like a normal person, and not feel like I need to rush home or nurse in the car when my son is hungry/thirsty. \n\nBless the women working to normalize breastfeeding in public. I used to think it was ostentatious and obnoxious and attention - grabby, but I know better now. ",
"I think women would cover up with a receiving blanket or something similar when breast feeding. I don't want to see someone's naked breasts any more than I want to see someone go to the bathroom, take a shower, brush their teeth, etc. These are all perfectly normal functions performed by most of us, but no one wants to see you do them. I feel the same about breast feeding. Just exercise a bit of discretion. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1gmk9h
|
why do dogs tilt their heads to the side when you speak to them in a high-pitched "baby" voice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gmk9h/eli5_why_do_dogs_tilt_their_heads_to_the_side/
|
{
"a_id": [
"calnhjt",
"calu0ig"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"They are trying to hear you more efficiently, based on the shape of their heads and where their ears are currently pointing.",
"To help the love drizzle in more efficiently.\n\nNot really, but would that be an awesome reason? I think so."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4ea2cg
|
why are humans vastly more intelligent than even animals with vastly larger brains like elephants or whales?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ea2cg/eli5_why_are_humans_vastly_more_intelligent_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1yacb9",
"d1yb9zc",
"d1ybnbj",
"d1yej6z",
"d1yezdf",
"d1yfa38",
"d1yimyw",
"d1yomiw"
],
"score": [
56,
5,
10,
10,
6,
93,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The volume of the brain doesn't matter. The number of folding is what matters. Imagine having a 100 meter square sheet, versus a 10 meters square sheet. Now take the large one and cram it into a human skull. Do the same with the 10 m2 sheet and push it down into the elephant skull. The 100 m2 sheet has obviously more neurons, and a much bigger number of foldings when the fabric is crammed into such a relatively small volume. This allows neurons from any part of the sheet to be in close contact with other neurons that are normally far away when the sheet is flat, this creates obviously far more contact between all the neurons and thus more intelligence. Brain to body ratio is another factor to intelligence. But folding is what matters more when a bird like a crow, with a much smaller skull shows to be able to solve problem like an ape.\n\nI advise you to check pictures of an elephant brain, a dolphin brain and a human brain, and you'll understand what I'm talking about.",
"Why are some humans vastly more intelligent than other humans despite having the same sized brains?",
"Humans have an amazing capacity for symbolic thought and linguistic communication. That's our talent as a species. But we haven't cornered the market on emotion or communication or socialization or even sentience. In fact, our visual memories are worse than chimpanzees and our spatial memories are worse than the average lab rat. So it's hard to argue that humans are, strictly speaking, more intelligent. It's not so much the size of the brain, but rather what it's doing.",
"There are a couple issues here. \n\nFirst off, remember that evolution isn't a goal oriented process. Intelligence, particularly the human form of it, worked for us. Because of our physiology, being able to communicate and make tools was advantageous so we did it. Sharks have zero need to make tools, and that's why they haven't. \n\nJellyfish are perfectly adapted to what they do, so they haven't changed much. \n\nSecondly, you're assuming that our intelligence is the best intelligence. Even if a whale could build a skyscraper, what would that accomplish for it? They're adapted to their situation. They're highly communicative and have strong emotional intelligence. For the world they live in, that's their advantage. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nWe are actually #2 when it comes to cerebral neuron count, surpassed only by the long-finned pilot whale.\n\nIf i remember correctly, primates are one of the few species where neuron size remain constant for various body sizes.",
"Neuroscientist here, also with some experience in intelligence research.\n\nGenerally, is believed that brain mass to body mass ratio is a loose indicator of cognitive ability. \n\nSo, what explains deviations from that tend?\n\nOne explanation is highly developed but very specific abilities. Humans are particularly specialized for general intelligence, but other species may rely on highly specialized abilities like extremely high visual acuity, extremely detailed spatial memory, or more complex auditory systems that can be used for echolocation. These might drive up brain mass without increasing overall cognitive ability very much.\n\nAnother may be metabolic. Factors like the need for insulation or caloric efficiency may drive up brain mass as well. \n\nAnd in at least some species, degree of brain folding (versus smoothness) correlate with cognitive abilities.\n\nSo, long story short, cramming in more neurons makes brains bigger, but a lot of other stuff CAN also make brains bigger, which is why brain/body mass ratio is not a perfect indicator.",
"While the question of brain size to neuron density has been answered, you can't forget the fact that we operate quite differently to big animals like that. For one, we have hands instead of four feet or flippers, suited for the construction and use of tools. We're smaller, meaning we're more agile, we hunted and foraged for food, meaning we had to be strong, smart and resourceful in order to take down much faster animals and locate nutritional food from plants. The reason we're so much better at identifying colours like red unlike dogs and other animals is because the search for fruit and berries necessitated a more diverse array of colour perception. However, until the point where we started making language, we were pretty comparable to a lot of other animals. Being the way we are, living active, short lives, we became socially complex creatures, a trait that lends itself to the kind of conceptual abstract thinking we do all the time. Add that to the invention of language and writing (which came about as we evolved more effective vocal precision to make communication both easier and more complex) which turns abstract meaning into a finite, understandable, tangible state and it's no wonder we've become more and more intelligent. We are the only species with the capacity to record information that can be read and applied to the lives of humans thousands of years in the future. We would be nowhere technologically if we couldn't build upon the work of previous generations passed down through oral tradition and works of writing. That's why we're so goddamn smart, because we have language that we can use to convey ideas, and work together with each other across time and space to achieve survival. ",
"I think a lot of it has to do with the advent of writing and keeping of history. Most human feats are accomplished by standing on the shoulders of those before us. Put a human in any given natural habitat and they won't be any more equipped for survival than any other animal there. We really aren't THAT much more intelligent than any other higher mammal. We just happen to have the benefit of collective knowledge. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2qw577
|
why does travelling backwards on a train feel uncomfortable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qw577/eli5_why_does_travelling_backwards_on_a_train/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cna2zji"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The forward motion of a train makes it so that your body will go back; many time there'll be a seat on your back. When you are going backwards on a train, your body will tend to go forward, where nothing is. Because of this, you will most likely be using some extent of muscle to make sure that you don't fall off of your seat"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1uwkql
|
why is it that we can't use something to make our facial hair grow rapidly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uwkql/eli5_why_is_it_that_we_cant_use_something_to_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cemd4e4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Don't worry, before long you'll be wishing there was something to slow it down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5todqs
|
implosion. how can engineers make buildings collapse into themselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5todqs/eli5implosion_how_can_engineers_make_buildings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddnut8d",
"ddnuu17"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The middle collumn of a building explodes first, so all the tension of the building starts facing inwards, since the inner support is gone. Then the supports at the exterior are destroyed, the tension is facing towards the interior so everything will fall to the middle point. This happens in very quick succession.",
"basically you place a bunch of really small explosives on key structural areas of the building and then detonate them at different times. Usually you blow up some smaller explosions in the upper floor to weaken it. then you detonate a lot of small explosions on the bottom floor so the entire building falls downwards. Once this happens the upper floor experience stress and start to fall downward layer by layer. The weakest floor will drop on to the lower floor putting more stress that the supports cant hold dropping that floor creating a chain reaction."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
d0ru87
|
why fingertips look the way they do?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d0ru87/eli5_why_fingertips_look_the_way_they_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezchev8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We're not quite sure actually. At least regarding fingerprints.\n\nThe popular theory used to be that they could help improve grip. With testing they actually reduce grip on dry surfaces but may improve grip on wet surfaces by allowing space for water to squish out like tire treads.\n\nOne thing they definitely help with is with the sense of touch and textures. Running your finger across a surface causes the fingertip to vibrate a bit because of the ridges and that vibration helps us feel texture and also feel when something is slipping"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cxe6um
|
why does it matter that boris has suspended parliament? what could this lead to? [uk]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cxe6um/eli5_why_does_it_matter_that_boris_has_suspended/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eykjh6f",
"eykjv4g",
"eyklqau",
"eykn5bz",
"eykr9jw"
],
"score": [
25,
23,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"An unelected leader bypassing a democratically elected parliament to push through their wishes kinda sets a bad precedent.",
"It matters that Boris has suspended parliament because parliament will try to stop a no deal brexit, which is what Boris wants. By doing this, he has dramatically reduced the ability of parliament to prevent no deal brexit. Since parliament is, roughly speaking, the will of the people, whilst Boris Johnson is the will of just 160,000 people and he is essentially unelected, this is worrying for the process of democracy.",
"It cuts down the time that Parliament has to stop a no deal brexit. Their only real option is to call a no-confidence vote in the government, which most likely won't even work, as Boris can simply say that if it succeeds, then he'll call an election for after Brexit day, and they can only have a new government before then if Boris resigns, which he most likely won't. Doing something like this isn't entirely unprecedented, both Clement Atlee and John Major's Governments did it to get their ways without the trouble of Parliament getting in the way. It is however a very rare occurrence, and this will be by far the largest change that has occurred as a result.",
"It reduces the amount of time parliament has to debate and find a solution to Brexit. UK still has not agreed upon a deal to leave the UK in an organized fashion, with trade deals and agreements on border crossings.\n\nIf there's no deal they get completely isolated when they leave the EU and have to pay whatever EU's default tarrifs are to sell their goods and services in the EU and nether group of citizens will be able to easily travel between the UK and EU anymore.\n\nIt will be economically devistating if they leave without and agreed upon deal and now they have even less time to agree upon one. \n\nThe common consensus is Boris did this explicitly to force a \"no deal\" Brexit and stop Parliament from potentially stopping or delaying Brexit because no deal could be agreed on.",
"On 23 June 2016, the majority (52%) of Brits voted to leave the EU.\n\nFor the past 3 years the liberals, elites, the Labour Party and most of the media have been trying to nullify the referendum and stay in the EU.\n\nEnter Boris as new PM of her Majesty's Government. An avid Brexiteer who said that GB will leave the EU at the end of Oct 2019, with or without a trade deal, i.e. a \"hard Brexit\".\n\nOff course the opposition is in a tiff, they thought that Brexit would be delayed again. Giving them ample time to keep on poisoning the well, until public sentiment would eventually turn against Brexit and it would never happen. \n\nSo, in a Machiavellian move Boris suspended parliament, which is his right to do as PM. The Queen, who is just a figurehead, had to rubber stamp his request.\n\nThus the opposition in parliament will have +/- 4 weeks less to try and stop Brexit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3rdunv
|
why is it that people can "make themselves heavier" when you try to pick them up? what is going on according to physics?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rdunv/eli5_why_is_it_that_people_can_make_themselves/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwn59sy",
"cwn5drx",
"cwn5eba",
"cwnbsev",
"cwncv1n"
],
"score": [
51,
11,
3,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"So its pretty obvious that if you want to pick up a 150lb person you need to provide a 150+lb force up. But there is an additional force on your joints that rotates them. Your shoulder wants to rotate down and the muscles there need to provide a rotational force in the opposite direction. If you hold a 20lb dumbbell near your chest its easy but the same dumbbell held with your arm extended is much harder. So if someone wants to make it hard to pick them up they need to distribute their weight away from your center of gravity and create more torque than you can handle.",
"You also might be thinking about how people advise that if you are being kidnapped or something, rather than struggling against them constantly as they drag you away, go limp. A rigid/struggling body is a solid object, grab any one part and tug and the whole thing generally speaking moves, it's rather easy to carry. When you go limp, you are a sack of potatoes. A very large sack of potatoes. It's really hard to find a good way to carry that outside of the fireman's carry, and if someone has you in a fireman's carry it's not terribly hard to abuse that to hurt them or get away.",
"They aren't \"heavier\" but they aren't assisting you in the effort. Normally when you give someone a hand up they are using their muscle and balance as well. If they are just dead weight it's just like lifting a really heavy bag of potatoes. Heavy and unbalanced. ",
"It's an old, old carny/magic/fakir trick that involves moments, which are rotational forces. Basically, the act starts with the performer having you lift them in a certain way, which you find easy. Then they do whatever magic mumbo jumbo the act involves, and invite you to lift them again \"in the exact same way.\"\n\nExcept it isn't. The performer subtly shifts their position so that they are just a little further away this time. But the effect on the moment is enormous, it can effectively triple the number of foot-pounds needed to lift the subject.\n\nHere's a clip from a Discovery Channel show where Penn & Teller look at the trick (though they cut off the video before the explanation):\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI have personally lifted Sue in her show at the Magic Castle in Hollywood. The first time was easy, the second time was impossible. Couldn't even budge her.\n\n\n",
"I have a fair bit of knowledge on this subject, as I have a lot of training in professional wrestling. When it comes to lifting someone for most moves, the person taking the move will \"post\", attempting to redirect where their weight is going, and trying to make it so their center of gravity is as close to yours as possible. This means it takes surprisingly little force to lift someone. When someone isn't posting, their center of gravity is further from yours, and you have to use a lot more strength to compensate for that. Pushing your weight into the ground makes this even harder, making the center of gravity much harder to shift. It's not unlike trying to lift a heavy box, if it's on a table, you can lift it far easier than if it's on the ground, and the closer you are to it, the easier it is to pick up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKJsOSdFOTQ"
],
[]
] |
||
4cu4lc
|
is there an equivalent of "-gate", like "gamergate" or "deflategate"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cu4lc/eli5_is_there_an_equivalent_of_gate_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1lh3dl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The UK at least has picked up the \"gate\"\n\n_URL_0_\n\nFYI in case you didn't know, adding \"gate\" to the end of words to denote scandal started with the Watergate Scandal that caused Richard Nixon to resign his Presidency."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom#1990s"
]
] |
||
7cu3g8
|
how, in cases such as schizophrenia, does the brain create such realistic audible and visual hallucinations while the person is conscious?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7cu3g8/eli5_how_in_cases_such_as_schizophrenia_does_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpspft8",
"dpstjc6",
"dpt8r7x",
"dptefkk",
"dptezdp"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"When we hear or see things, it's really just our brain interpreting the electrical activity of neurons caused by vibrations (sound) or radiation (light). Our brains are really good at creating its own electrical activity to transmit data between parts of the brain (this is what seizures are), so it makes sense that some people would experience hallucinations while under the effects of certain drugs or mental illnesses (like schizophrenia, in which certain parts of the brain may not be communicating correctly between each other). \n\nHell, \"thinking\" is halfway there to a full hallucination. We can conjure images, sounds, even videos in our mind without any effort at all. It's just that in the brain of a schizophrenic, those subconscious efforts are difficult or impossible to distinguish from reality.",
"I can answer for auditory hallucinations.\n\nOur hearing is mostly processed in the temporal lobe. It has been observed that, when a schizophrenic is experiencing an auditory hallucination, the temporal lobe is more active than when it is not hallucinating, while another part of the brain, within the temporoparietal lobe, is busy generating the forethought to speech: sounds, words, etc. \n\nThese regions of the brain are not communicating: the part generating speech isn't letting the temporal lobe know that this speaker is hearing their own voice, therefore their brain processes this stimulus as a 'genuine' auditory experience. If our brain doesn't know for sure that we're speaking when we hear a voice, we automatically assume that the voices are talking TO us.",
"There is signal, and there is noise. Our brains have to separate the two. And worse, the signal is noisy itself. Move your eyes just a little bit, and the image on your retina is completely different from the one you just had. How can we see something as constant when sensory impressions keep on changing?\n\nThrough learning. We learn how much noise exists naturally. So when we see a static object, we are cancelling out the noise. This makes the world stable. There is even evidence that a chemical known as acetylcholine is responsible for doing so in the brain. Too little of this chemical, and the world breaks down. Nothing is stable anymore. We see shadows moving, people coming and going, light flickering, spiders moving across our field of vision.\n\nConsciousness, you see, requires controlled hallucination. The world out there is stable, but our senses are picking up chaos. Our brains need to filter out irrelevant signals for us to see the world as it is.\n\nHallucination is what happens when you fail to cancel out the noise.",
"I'd like to build off of what /u/Kotama said:\n\n > Hell, \"thinking\" is halfway there to a full hallucination. We can conjure images, sounds, even videos in our mind without any effort at all.\n\nI want you to imagine a purple elephant in a pink tutu, holding a battle axe. He is fighting Darth Vader on a grassy battlefield.\n\nThere is no way in hell that you or I or anyone has ever seen that. You came up with it in your mind, because the brain is very good at taking things we HAVE seen (elephants, the concept of purple, Darth Vader) and combining them together.\n\nThat is literally the definition of a hallucination. You just hallucinated about an elephant-sith battle.\n\nThe difference is that with schizophrenia, you can't tell that it's fake.",
"The reality is we are pretty much hallucinating all the time. \n\nWhat our eyes and ears take in his highly processed before it is recognized as sights and sounds. Two-dimensional images are extrapolated into three dimensions, color and brightness are normalized, motion is projected, incomplete images and sounds are filled in from memory, and unnecessary background noise is filtered out. \n\nWith all this going on, it isn't terribly surprising when the brain is disrupted by drugs or illness that you can wind up experiencing some pretty wild things that are not actually happening."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fkxc7c
|
what exactly do fluorinated gases do in ac units or refrigerators? is there any alternatives?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fkxc7c/eli5_what_exactly_do_fluorinated_gases_do_in_ac/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fkvmo02"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are many alternatives.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nIn particular, towards the bottom of the list are a number of non-fluorinated gases. CO2 is one, butane, even air (R729) are possibilities.\n\nHowever, they mostly have properties that make them less attractive than fluorinated chemicals - either that very high pressures are required to make them work (CO2) which are difficult to achieve with cheaply mass-produced compressors, or that they are flammable (butane is, after all, what we refill cigarette lighters with) or that phase-change doesn't happen in their use (aircraft PACK air conditioners which use high-pressure air which is bled from the engine compressors) and hence very large quantities of refrigerant are needed to be used (compressed and then de-compressed) with an attendant high cost in terms of energy usage.\n\nIn computer cooling, heat-pipe coolers used on some CPUs utilise distilled water as the cooling mechanism. It's held in the closed system at reduced pressure, and consequently boils at temperatures far below 100'C. It will re-condense back into liquid at the 'cool' side of the heatpipe (the main heatsink) to cycle back through the system. No compressor is used.\n\nIt's also possible to cool via other means - Peltier (thermoelectric) coolers are solid (no liquids, gases or moving parts) slabs of ceramic with PN junctions typically made of Bismuth Telluride which pump heat from one side of the device to the other when electricity is applied to them. They're the cooling device in the mini-fridges which are cheaply available. They're in some respects a very good solution - silent, no moving parts to wear out, compact, reliable etc. However their energy efficiency is significantly lower than compressor based phase-change refrigeration - I think about a third of the efficiency.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe fluorinated-type of common refrigerants are used because of their desireable properties - cheapness, practicalities of construction of the refrigeration units, lack of flammability and toxicity etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refrigerants"
]
] |
||
1s8pup
|
whats the difference between () [] and {} ?
|
Edit: Thanks guys
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s8pup/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdv0zwh",
"cdv10xe",
"cdv12rs",
"cdv283s",
"cdv28fy",
"cdv2n05",
"cdv3xyq",
"cdv3ydx",
"cdv4fe8",
"cdv5dj3",
"cdv840b",
"cdv993l",
"cdv9c9m",
"cdv9qi8",
"cdvaftr",
"cdvagvs",
"cdvb1sf",
"cdvdx81",
"cdve2yc",
"cdve36h",
"cdvex8m",
"cdvf38u",
"cdvfgz8",
"cdvftim",
"cdvfzb3"
],
"score": [
1513,
12,
168,
13,
2,
25,
17,
4,
2,
2,
3,
7,
9,
3,
8,
3,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
3,
3,
18
],
"text": [
"The wiki on [Brackets](_URL_0_) explains this fairly well.\n\nParentheses () contain material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence.\n\nSquare brackets [] are mainly used to insert explanatory material or to mark where a passage was omitted from an original material by someone other than the original author, or to mark modifications in quotations.\n\nCurly brackets are used immediately before or after, and span, a list of items where there precedes, or follows, respectively, one or more other items that are common to that list.",
"Depend the context. They are just characters like pretty much any other. In maths, they usually join parameters to put an order, therefore making it easier to read, and giving you where to start doing operations. In that case, you usually start with (), then [], and finally {}, like:\n\n > { a + [b*(c+d)]}\n\nc+d is a group, then you have b*(c+d), and finally, a + [b*(c+d)]. You start operating from (), then [], and then {}. In some programming languages, there are other uses of them, like [] is used to manage lists, {} to get together a couple of lines, () to give one or more parameters to what is called a function, as an example.\n\nIt depends on the context.",
"It depends on the context. \nIn a programmer's point of view, will vary in language, but generally: \n\n* \"()\" are used when defining a function's parameters(the information that you want to use), like such:\n > function say_my_name(name)\n\n* \"[]\" are usually used to define arrays(groups of variables(numbers, text, etc.)), like so:\n > [\"John\",\"Anna\",\"Barney\"]\n\n* \"{}\" are used to open and close blocks of code. The function we saw previously, would be followed by these, defining what code would be run when the function is called. Declaring when the function start and ends, looking like this:\n > function say_my_name(name) {\n > print(name);\n > }\n\nMight not be a very ELI5 level explanation, I hope someone can make it more simple.\n\nI can't describe correctly the uses of these characters in written language or math.\n\nEDIT: Formatting",
"In mathematics, {} indicates a set. () is used to denote a grouping of terms that needs to be operated first i.e. 3(2+5)=3(7)=21. [] brackets are used alternating with parentheses to make it easier to see where one group starts and stops. i.e. 4[3(2+5)]=4[3(7)]=4[21]=84. Generally speaking brackets and parentheses are interchangeable.\n\nParentheses are also used to indicate the input of a function i.e. if f(x)=5x then f(3)=15. Parentheses can also be used to form ordered pairs (or triplets, etc.) like a point on a graph. (4,3) would refer to the point where x=4 and y=3.\n\nYou mostly see {} when indicating a set. There *is* a difference between x and {x}. One is just a value, and one is a set that contains just that element. For example, the set of all even natural numbers less than 10 is {2,4,6,8} *not* (2,4,6,8) or [2,4,6,8] or 2,4,6,8.",
"Parentheses () contain parameters to the function.\n\nSquare brackets [] contain a specified index of a collection.\n\nSquiggly brackets {} define the scope of the world for things living within.\n\n\"Curly brackets\" is a stupid term",
"In crystal growth theory () and {} represent surfaces and < > and [] represent directions.\n\n{} is one surface, a face. So (100) is one surface\n{} is the set of all surfaces that are symmetrically equivalent. So {100} is (100) (-100) (010), etc.\n[] is one direction, called a Zone Axis. As in \"you are looking down the [100] zone axis.\"\n < > is the set of all directions that are symmetrically equivalent. So < 100 > is [100], [-100], etc.",
"(subtext note, pertaining information coordinated elsewhere)\n[information subject to change, unverifiable]\n{everything in here is related in a specific way to be described}",
"() are usually used to call functions, [] are used for accessing array members and {} are used for marking blocks of code or JSON objects. ",
"they are also very useful in mathematical notation, to keep track of what arguments belong to which function. example:\n\nE[S(x,y)^2]-{E[S(x,y)]}^2=Var[S(x,y)]\n\nedit: yikes! formatting! i meant exponent, not superscript!",
"Parens are for open sets (among other things), brackets are for closed sets (among other things), and braces are for collections, families, LaTeX functions, and misery (if you have ever lost track of a } in Latex, I expect you know the pain...).",
"Square brackets are used by lawyers in draft legal documents (at least in England) to indicate wording that is under review or may be deleted.",
"Parenthesis contain material (that could be omitted) without destroying or alterning the meaning [edit: of a sentence], as opposed to other types {square, curly}.",
"Just a small addition. In chemistry square brackets are often used to denote concentration\n\neg: at pH 7: [H+] = 1x10^-7",
"Aside from grammar they also have a mathematical orginization.\n\nFor example {5x5[(4+8)×2]}. Curly bracjets being the very outer ones that contain the entire equation, then the square ones inside hold another equation, and the normal parentheses hold the inner most equation, and those are the starting point. So you'd solve from the inside out.",
"An example of parentheses () would be:\n\n > I'm going (with my friend) to the mall. \n\nNote that it simply adds information to the sentence. It can easily be omitted if necessary. \n\nAn example of square brackets [] would be used in a quote, say, from a journal entry of someone in war. The brackets would be used in case they forgot a letter or word, such as:\n\n > [T]hey came to my house at night, and asked [for] hospitality. \n\nThe other ones I have no clue about. ",
"In programming it would depend on the language. In scheme for instance, any time you want to call a primitive type, or special form, you would wind up using \"()\". And the opening and closing of functions use \"()\". So pretty much any time that you want to do anything in scheme, you wind up using parentheses. \n\nBut in java, the opening and closing of a method or class uses \"{}\". and if you want to access an array (or a map? I forget the syntax of maps) you use []. ontop of that, any time you wanted to do a method call, you would do it like so: \n\nobjName.functName( var1,var2,etc)\n\ntl;dr: op didn't specify what he wanted to know what \"()\",\"[]\",\"{}\" were used for, so I decided that he wanted to know about programming. ",
"The first part of this thread was ok. The second, well, my head feels like it imploded, as for the third- fuck you all.",
"Really thought this was going to be about prgramming",
"Isn't there another use, when explaining the span of numbers.\n\nEx: Range of x is (2, 5) vs [2, 5]. () says that the numbers are not included in the range but they are for []. So for x is in the range of (5, 9] would mean 5 < x < =9.\n\nCould be wrong. Or maybe I made it up?",
"After a quick glance, I haven't seen this one yet. If, within a parenthetical statement you need to make another parenthetical statement, use brackets for the second one. If you need to make a third, go back to parentheses, fourth brackets, and so on in alternating fashion.\n\nExample: As I was driving to the grocery store (the one by Bob's Big Boy [the one where you got food-poisoning that time]), I hit a hobo with my car.",
"index[x]\nparameter(y)\nElements = {x,y,z}",
"Curly brackets are used for sets. Square brackets and round brackets are often interchangeable, and are used for marking off which parts of an equation should be evaluated first. However, round brackets are also used for function arguments and for inner products and n-tuples. Square brackets are also used for the Newton divided difference.\n\nAlso, interval notation.",
"If you use the wrong one your whole 3500 lines of god damn code won't work.",
"*() is for open intervals \n*[] is for closed intervals \n*{} is for sets\n\n*frigging maths*",
"This thread is locked because 9/10 new explanations are either vagina jokes, one sentence explanations or \"[] = list, () = tuple, {} = dictionary\", which is not an explanation at all. Also I'm pretty sure he's not talking about programs anyway. *If it's one sentence, it's probably not an explanation, and therefore doesn't belong as a top level comment*. \n\nSeeing how shit-answers are coming through faster than I can keep up, it's easier to just lock this and thank the people who gave great answers at the top."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2fp2uk
|
what wars are being fought today and why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fp2uk/eli5_what_wars_are_being_fought_today_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckbdara",
"ckbdz40"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"1. Ukraine - Oil and gas infrastructure, naval bases, ethnic tensions\n\n2. Syria - Extraordinarily cruel regime inevitably led to a complex civil war, which has spilled over into Iraq\n\n3. Nigeria - History of tension between Muslim north and Christian south, plus the difficulty of maintaining control over a huge country, with remote borders.\n\n4. Congo - This is a doozy of a war which can't be explained to a five year-old.\n\n5. Afganistan - No one has united Afghanistan in forty years. Heavily mountainous, difficult to control, lots of ethnic grievances.\n\n6. India and Pakistan - still technically at war 60 years after independence. The partition both caused a great deal of hardship and resentment (as Muslims and Hindus were expelled and forced to move) and also led to conflicts over border provinces. Both sides still claim Jammu/Kashmir.\n\n7. Korea - still technically at war. North Korea invaded the South, intending to unify the peninsula, but failed, and the final battlelines have been a heavily guarded demilitarized zone ever since.",
"Here's a list of current conflicts which are being fought around the world:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n - **Name of Conflict (Total deaths - Fatalities since the start of 2013)**\n\nNote that numbers are unlikely to be super accurate and that some of these conflicts go back decades (Israel / Palestine, Afghanistan, etc).\n\n---\n\nMore than 10,000 casualties per year\n\n\n - **Mexican Drug War (150,000+ - 13,189)** - this is between gangs and police\n\n - **Syrian Civil War (260,000+ - 103,455)** - things started off as protests and quickly escalated when the government used brutal tactics to crack down\n\n - **South Sudanese Civil War (15,000+ - 10,800+)** - fueled by tribal / racial rivalries, tribes not in the government are fighting those that control the government.\n\n - **2014 Iraq Crisis (29,421 - 20,674)** - this is IS trying to take over Iraq and install their own rule, with Kurdish and Iraqi government forces trying to fight them off.\n\n---\n\n1000 to 10,000 casualties per year\n\n - **Israel-Gaza Conflict (22,000+ - 2238)** - this is Israel invading Gaza to destroy the government / terrorist group Hamas who had / have repeatedly been firing rockets into Israel and attempting terror attacks.\n\n - **War in Afghanistan (1,400,000+ - 7,212)** - there was once a communist regime in Afghanistan, it was taken down in 1992, in the chaos, the Taliban took power, ruled cruelly and created a safe-haven for Islamic extremists like al-Qaeda. The US invaded in 2001 after 9/11 to try and destroy al-Qaeda. They then stayed there to fight off the counter-insurgency and train the new government military to be able to protect itself against the Taliban.\n\n - **Somalia Civil War (500,000+ - 5,037)** - rebel forces overthrew a regime in 1991, they then fought over control but then the UN, African Union and US put a new democratic government into power; it's now battling the left-over more extremist rebel groups.\n\n - **Islamist Insurgency in Nigeria (22,000+ - 6,640)** - an Islamist group Boko Haram are trying to introduce sharia law (similar to IS in Iraq) onto a population that's only about 50% Muslims and in defiance of a secular government. The government and Christian side (48% of the population) are fighting for their federal laws, etc to remain secular.\n\n - **War in North-West Pakistan (52,910+ - 8,592)** - there are rebel groups, including al-Qaeda, the Pakistan Taliban, etc fighting against the Pakistan government, partly because of the government's aid in the international War on Terror.\n\n - **Egyptian Crisis (4,300+ - 1,325)** - there were protests in 2011, the government responded harshly, the people rebelled and took down the government. They elected a new guy, Morsi in 2012, but he was rotten too and kicked out of power by the people / military. This year they elected another new guy who's going alright, but still faces opposition from groups that had been trying to take power as well.\n\n - **Post-Civil War Violence in Libya (1,869+ - 1,452)** - there were protests in Libya in 2011, the government cracked down brutally, rebel groups formed and fought against the government, the government fought back with tanks, jets, chemical weapons, etc almost defeating the rebel forces. The UN intervened under pressure from Italy and France, and the US and Europe then bombed the crap out of Libya's government forces. In total, about 25,000+ died in that conflict. A government rose to power, but then abused its power and didn't stand down after their term. The military is now trying to get rid of the current government and bring in a new caretaker government so that elections can be done again. There's also Islamic armed groups fighting for either side and their own reasons.\n\n - **Central African Republic Conflict (2,599+ - 2,123)** - there was a civil war, rebels have accused the government of failing to abide by peace agreements and so there's a heap of rebel forces fighting the government, which has been reinforced by troops from various other African nations. Last year the rebels took over the country. This new government is divided and there's fighting taking place between the groups that formed the new government.\n\n - **War in Ukraine (2,593+ - 2,593+)** - the Ukraine government wanted to join the European Union, but the eastern part of the country wanted Ukraine to stay tied to Russia, who has one of their major ports (their main access to the Mediterranean and home of the Black Sea Fleet) located in the Ukrainian city of Sevastopol. Taking advantage of this, Russia took over Crimea (part of eastern Ukraine). Today there are rebel groups that are fighting the Ukrainian government elsewhere in the east, although it has been shown that Russia is also 'secretly' sending troops, missile launchers, etc to help the rebels, whilst denying involvement."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts"
]
] |
||
2vdci5
|
what is the consumer price index?
|
I am giving a speech and am trying to figure out the simplest way to explain to a group of people, many of whom know absolutely no economics, what the Consumer Price Index is.
Edit: Grammar
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vdci5/eli5_what_is_the_consumer_price_index/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cogmkqc",
"cogmylj"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The CPI is a way to measure the changes in price of the products an average family buys.\n\nFirst economists determine what sort of products the average family buys. These products are then sorted into sub-categories, and each category is weighted. The higher the weight, the more important those particular products are to the day to day living of the family. Gas and groceries, for example, tend to be weighted high, because that is something we need every day to keep going, whereas products in the entertainment category have a lower weight. After all, nobody dies from not buying a DVD. Once all this is done, agencies periodically check up on the prices to see if prices are going up or down, in which categories they are going up/down and how important these categories are for the average family. \n\nThe CPI is used to calculate inflation and buying power. It is a way to see if that 100 dollars that customers had in year X, can still buy them the same amount of products in year Y and if not, where the change was. ",
"It's more technical than this but the ELI5 version: It is often times used as a measure of cost of living (and thereby inflation) as it represents an aggregate price of a bunch of different goods. People from the Bureau of Labor Statistics literally go around to various stores throughout the country and survey prices for a [\"basket\" of items](_URL_2_). These items try to be representative of what consumers typically buy based on data the BLS collects through the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Some items are weighted more heavily than others. Honestly, their [FAQ page](_URL_0_) has pretty decent ELI5 explanations if you need more detailed information. \n\nThe [chained CPI](_URL_1_) is a variant of the CPI, and is designed to account for substitution effects arising from price increases in one good and consumers buy another good instead. An example is hamburgers and hot dogs. If the price for hot dogs increase, consumers will buy fewer hot dogs and more hamburgers, which would alter the basket of goods surveyed and the weighting. Under the plain CPI, this adjustment would not be seen for a number of years, whereas under the chained CPI, it would be seen the next month."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chained_Consumer_Price_Index",
"http://www.bls.gov/dolfaq/bls_ques3.htm"
]
] |
|
35pz39
|
why/how does lightning interupt my car radio reception?
|
When driving around town listening to a local radio station on my car radio, whenever lightning strikes (even if its way out on the horizon) I get a quick break in reception that sounds like a walkie-talkie when you let go of the 'talk' button. It seems to happen right as the lightning strikes and not when the thunder rolls through which is strange because I had first thought that the sound waves were messing with the radio waves. Any explaination to this would be much appreciated!
Thank you
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35pz39/eli5whyhow_does_lightning_interupt_my_car_radio/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr6nrz6",
"cr6nwbh",
"cr6o9ak"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > It seems to happen right as the lightning strikes and not when the thunder rolls through which is strange because I had first thought that the sound waves were messing with the radio waves. \n\nSound doesn't mess with radio waves, but other radio waves easily can. Lightning produces just that; some EM radiation that can overpower the radio signal. For a brief moment the lightning bolt is the most powerful transmitter over a large set of frequencies. \n\nSince EM radiation travels at the speed of light - after all, light *is* EM radiation - it'll happen as soon as you can see the lightning.\n\nSome systems use this fact to detect lightning strikes; set up some antennae and you can detect quick bursts of energy, triangulate the source and use the energy detected to work out how severe it must have been.",
"Lightning is a burst of electromagentic energy caused by a change in electric potential in the atmosphere. This burst of electromagnegtic energy interferes with the electromagnetic radio waves and what you hear the static intererence. Lightning and radio waves travel at 186000 miles/second while the thunder travels at 1100 feet/second, hence you hear the interference as the lightning strikes.",
"Lightning emits strong, brief radio frequencies that can interfere with the radio signal. These frequencies are how lightning detection systems work.\n\nThe sound waves have nothing to do with the radio signal and don't interfere with it at all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
aizdeu
|
why does martin luther king jr get all the glory and malcolm x gets left in the dust?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aizdeu/eli5_why_does_martin_luther_king_jr_get_all_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eerhedm",
"eerj05s",
"eerkoyq",
"eerlifu"
],
"score": [
15,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Malcolm X was radical and preached violence and black supremacy. He openly challenged whites and Christianity. Basically back in the day for the government and white communities Martin Luther King would be considered the \"lesser of two evils\"",
"Well Professor X wanted to co-existence with mutants and humans, to bring equality to the world without violence, and to show society that mutants weren't the bad people the world made them out to be. Magneto didn't want to co-exist so much, he wanted to put humans in their place and instilled in mutants that they shouldn't have to live in fear and promoted violence as a means of getting results for the mutant race. \n\nProfessor X wanted peace, Magneto wanted retribution.",
"Questions like this are better in r/answers or r/askhistorians.",
"I don't know the answer to your question, but I'm also kind of amazed that Malcom isn't embraced and studied more. There are so many aspects of his life, his yearning, and his evolution that are tragic > laudable. He is an Everyman. He should be the patron saint of all who are shit on, hate the world for it, then learn to love. I've read quite a bit about him, including his autobiography (w/ Alex Hailey), and watched probably every interview that's out there: this was an incredibly insightful human. I feel the same about MLKj. Read their words, without prejudice. I'll be damned if it isn't all relateable. I would argue that MX made the greater journey.\n\nTo anyone who says MX was a racist, you're focusing on early beliefs that he held but later, publicly, vocally, and unequivocally rejected. I personally think people do this out of racism, anything to reject a truly intelligent and mindful African American. Similar to how people who don't like MLKj immediately claim that he cheated on his wife so why should we listen and think about what he has to say."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
29t9r5
|
why is the introduction of midichlorians generally frowned upon by star wars fans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29t9r5/eli5_why_is_the_introduction_of_midichlorians/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cioad6c",
"cioapui"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Note: I'm not a Star Wars fan.\n\nIt was completely unnecessary and pointless. No one wanted to see Force explained and the explanation didn't achieve anything. It was basically just the Drunk Jedi going, \"Oh yeah and by the way, we can use Force because midochlorians\" and that was it. It was not a plot device, it wasn't built on in the subsequent movies, just dropped there completely randomly.\n\nIt also de-mystified the whole idea of the Force. The idea of Force in the original movies was that it was for anyone to grab, you just had to have the will to do it. Midochlorians brought it down to simple mathematics - oh, so you have more midochlorians than me, nothing I can do about it derp.",
"The Force used to be this mystical and spiritual power that only few could sense. Now it's a bacteria that was mentioned once and never used again. Its only purpose was to make Force mundane.\n\nAlso, when they knew that there was a powerful Sith hiding in plain sight, why didn't they just make a simple bloodtest to check who had enough of these little fuckers to be force-sensitive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3yjknb
|
why can my brain tell my arm to move up and down but can't tell my penis to stop having an erection at will?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yjknb/eli5why_can_my_brain_tell_my_arm_to_move_up_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cydy5ze",
"cydy78h",
"cydzn1i",
"cydzssx",
"cye0g90",
"cye1irg",
"cye2twn",
"cye38co",
"cye3ogt"
],
"score": [
4,
25,
351,
41,
4,
2,
6,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Because evolution has only given us conscious control over bodily functions where it is necessary. There is no evolutionary advantage to controlling your heart rate, your digestive muscles or your erection. Having those \"features\" would require the body to maintain more neural connections and use up valuable brain space.",
"Your arm moves because your brain sends signals to the muscles in it to contract or not, and for how long and when.\n\nYour penis doesn't have any muscles in it. It is just sponge-y tissue that fills with blood. Your brain cannot direct control that. ",
"Moving your arm up and down involves contractions of skeletal muscle, which are voluntarily controlled. This is the normal muscle type that most people are familiar with. Erections however are caused by increased blood flow to the penis due to the dilation of blood vessels via smooth muscles which are involuntarily controlled. Smooth muscles line the vast majority of your blood vessels and are used to maintain normal blood flow and blood pressure. ",
"To try to give you a true ELI5:\n\nYou can't stop an erection for the same reason you can't make your liver stop working. Your erections are more like your liver than your arm.",
"Your brain talks to your body in one of two ways: Hormones and Neurons. \n\nNeuronal path way is what your brain uses to control the muscles in your arms, but there are muscles that you can't control with the 'conscious' part of your brain eg heart, ejaculation etc and then there are ones you CAN control consciously but you don't HAVE to be conscious about it, like breathing. Weird ones; responses to orgasms - hip grinding/making noises - these things just happen unless you TRY not to do them. Erection is controlled entirely by the 'parasympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system' (says wikipedia!) which is completely out of your control.\n\nEven if you could, erection isn't directly controlled by the muscles but rather some chemical that dillate/constricts blood flow into and out of the penis, so even if you COULD control, it wouldn't be immediate. \n\nBut if you can think yourself something sexy and can get an erection, and can think of something horrible to turn yourself off and lose the erection, then maybe this means that you CAN control it at will...?",
"Not an answer but a tip.\n\nYou can flex your butt or leg muscles and the erection should go down. Something about diverting blood flow to the muscles instead of your dick.",
"The nerves in your body are split into two systems.\n\nThe somatic nervous system is involved in voluntary behaviors (events that you can control) such as moving your arms, legs, eyes, etc. You can control the part of your brain that sends signals to the somatic nervous system, which is why you can tell your arm to move.\n\nThe autonomic nervous system regulates the behaviors that \"run behind the scenes\" such as digesting your food, sweating, and salivating. You cannot control the part of your brain which sends signals to the autonomic nervous system, which is why you can't sweat on command or stop your stomach from digesting your food.\n\nThe ability to get an erection and ejaculate is controlled by the autonomic nervous system.\n\nThese two systems work completely independent of one another, with their own sets of wires (nerves) and signals (neurotransmitters), and cannot communicate with one another. Therefore, you cannot use the somatic nervous system to control things regulated by the autonomic nervous system, hence why you can't voluntarily control your erection.\n\n",
"Flex your legs and feet. Sends blood to then and usually puts down a hard on almost as fast as a flick to the nuts (my back up)",
"If you need to know how to slowly stop and erection.\n\nFlex your arms, that will decrease the bloodflow to the penis and redirect it to the arms.\n\nYou're welcome."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
wqebz
|
why do we have only one system of time?
|
Not in terms of calendars and months, but seconds/minutes/hours? Why did a day get chopped down to 24 units? And then into 60?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wqebz/eli5_why_do_we_have_only_one_system_of_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5fj9y0",
"c5fjzmt",
"c5fl75o",
"c5fpvjj"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"If you search ELI5, you'll find answers to some of these questions.\n\nHowever, I thought it would be useful to also point out that we don't have one single system of time. We have had many calendars over time (Gregorian is the current one, but Julian before that, and other cultures often used their own methods of measuring time such as the Aztec calendar that won't be causing the world to end in a few months).\n\nWe tend to settle on one form of calendaring because time is common to all humans and essential to communicate. (Even so, we do have time zones which could be considered slightly different systems.)\n\nAlso, computer systems tend to use a different, much simpler way of measuring time. This is necessary because human readable times (called the \"wall time\" by programmers, i.e., the time you read off a wall calendar and clock) have weirdnesses like a leap years and leap seconds. To avoid all this, computers generally pick a given instant, often midnight, Jan 1, 1970, UTC. Then, all time is measured in milliseconds since that moment. (This reference moment is generally referred to in a computer system as \"the epoch\", and it is by no means the only one. It's important when connecting one computer system to another that they agree on the epoch or set up a way of translating from one to the other.)\n\nOnce all systems agree on an epoch, no matter what time zone they're running in or whether it's a leap year or there's a leap second or whatever, they all represent time as a monotonically, constantly increasing value.\n\nThis can cause other problems, though, such as when you fill up the space allocated for keeping this value it rolls around to 0 like an odometer. This could potentially cause a problem in 2038 - _URL_0_",
"I think the 60 seconds/minute and 60 minutes/hour was chosen because it divides into neat integers so many different ways.\n\nFor example, in one 60 you have exactly:\n\n* 2 30s\n\n* 3 20s\n\n* 4 15s\n\n* 5 12s\n\n* 6 10s\n\nA time system based on 10 or 100 might have more in common with our numeric system, but wouldn't be as easy to divide evenly.",
"The French actually tossed around the idea of using decimal time during the Revolution. Instead of 24hrs, divided into 60mins divided into 60secs, you'd have 10 hours in a day, with 100 minutes each, with 100 seconds each.\n\nThis does simplify some things, but complicates a lot more. For example, if we were to switch over and not change anything about our lifestyles, you would work 3.333... hours per day rather than 8. You should get 3.333... hours of sleep at night. Your half-hour lunch break would be 20.833... minutes long, etc. \n\nThe system we have now seems arbitrary, but it works quite efficiently in terms of dividing time into manageable chunks. That, and we're used to it.",
"[This](_URL_0_) radio documentary possibly doesn't answer your question directly but it does go into how and why we measure time in the way we now do. It's been a little while since i listened but remember finding it pretty interesting. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dvw6t"
]
] |
|
3glmwv
|
how can something appear to be more black than what you see when your eyes are shut in the dark?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3glmwv/eli5how_can_something_appear_to_be_more_black/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctz7nk2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Your brain interprets how black something is. Your eyes are just the input device, but your brain adjusts for things like contrast -- something black next to something light looks *darker than* something equally black by itself."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2oh8qi
|
growing pains
|
When your body gets that achey feeling in your joints (I remember it specifically being behind my knees) when you're "growing"...why does it hurt? What am I feeling when that is happening?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oh8qi/eli5_growing_pains/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmn6uyq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not. 100% sure, but my understanding is that your bones grow so fast that they stretch the other things (muscles, ligaments, etc) and your feeling the stretching."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.