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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1dmn8i
|
imgur & reddit
|
I'm still new to the reddit world. I'm not sure I understand what IMGUR is and what its relationship to reddit is.
Is IMGUR a site where people create personal accounts and upload pictures for display like Picassa?
How is IMGUR different from Picassa?
Is IMGUR an independent site from reddit?
Can other photo sites be used to post pictures to reddit?
Why is IMGUR most frequently used with reddit?
When I look at an IMGUR picture, on the right side is a gallery of thumbnails of other pictures. Do all of those other pictures belong to the person whose picture I just looked at on the left?
How do I post a picture to reddit
( sending me to a link for this one is fine )
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dmn8i/eli5_imgur_reddit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9rs6d8",
"c9rsaw6",
"c9ru1jg",
"c9rvwlb",
"c9rvwtw",
"c9rw0pl",
"c9rx1mm",
"c9s7qzx"
],
"score": [
312,
15,
9,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Quick history lesson.\n\nReddit user /u/mrgrim created imgur \"for redditors\" and made this post a few years ago to unveil it:\n\n[Here's the original post](_URL_0_)\n\nTop comment has him explaining why he made it.\n\nNowadays Imgur grew into it's own sort of community and has become a seperate beast used by people who don't even know what Reddit is. \n\n\n**Now to answer your questions:**\n\n* How is IMGUR different from Picassa?\n\nI don't use Picasa so I'm sure somebody else can explain better. \n\nFrom my understanding Picasa lets you create albums and edit your images?\n\nImgur is mainly designed to simply host images so you can link them to people. (They added the ability to comment on images later on) While Picasa seems to have been designed as a social network where you can tag your friends Imgur is simply there to provide an easy solution for you to get your images online quick so you can link them somewhere. \n\n* Is IMGUR an independent site from reddit?\n\nYes it is was simply started up by Redditor /u/mrgrim for other redditors but he doesn't and never has worked for Reddit. \n\n* Can other photo sites be used to post pictures to reddit?\n\nYes! Any photo site can be used, the best way to do it is usually to make sure you have a direct link to the image (the URL will end with .jpg or .png or .gif) If you're having trouble finding the direct link you can usually right click the image and select \"copy link address\"\n\nI like to use _URL_3_ when I'm not using imgur. You can just drag and drop an image onto the website to upload and they have always been reliable for me.\n\n* Why is IMGUR most frequently used with reddit?\n\nIt's reliable, simple and created/run by a redditor who listens to community feedback and makes changes accordingly. Back in the day websites like imageshack and tinypic would remove images after they got to the front page because we used too much bandwidth and you'd have to find a mirror in the comments.\n\n* When I look at an IMGUR picture, on the right side is a gallery of thumbnails of other pictures. Do all of those \nother pictures belong to the person whose picture I just looked at on the left?\n\nUnless you're in an album those will be other people's uploads.\n\n\nIf you need clarification on anything else I'll be happy to do so.\n\n**EDIT**\n\nI missed your last question.\n\n* How do I post a picture to reddit ( sending me to a link for this one is fine )\n\n**To put an image in a comment:**\n\n* Upload to _URL_1_ or _URL_4_ or any other image host (you can simply drag and drop onto the website and click upload) and get an image url. You want to look for the direct link, you'll find it on the right hand side for imgur or you can right click the image and select \"Copy image URL\". Now paste your link in your comment and it will look something like this:\n\nhttp://i._URL_1_/1ZnRrJA.jpg\n\n* To make a link with text you can do the following:\n\n [The text you want linked](the image url)\n\nfor example:\n\n [Hello](http://i._URL_1_/1ZnRrJA.jpg)\n\nmakes:\n\n[Hello](http://i._URL_1_/1ZnRrJA.jpg)\n\n\n**To post an image to Reddit as a separate link**\n\n1. Go to a subreddit, we'll use _URL_2_ as an example.\n\n2. Click \"submit new link\" on the right hand side.\n\n3. Put whatever title you want in the title box.\n\n4. Put your direct image link (like I described above) in the URL box.\n\nAnd you're done! People can upvote, downvote and comment on your post. \n",
" > Is IMGUR a site where people create personal accounts and upload pictures for display like Picassa? \n\nIt can be. Or it can be a place where you slap up a image you found and have no real desire to keep track of it forever, and only need it to be viewable for a short period of time.\n\n > How is IMGUR different from Picassa?\n\nHow is Google different from Bing? Don't answer that - the answer is just that they're different sites that do things different ways, but the end result is the same. While you should use the one you are most comfortable with, Imgur is really, really good at allowing hotlinking, while other sites are... not.\n\n > Is IMGUR an independent site from reddit?\n\nYes. However, the site has many functions in it that make it ideal for redditors. Imgur has also taken steps to help facilitate Reddit, and vice versa. So while independent, the sites have done things to make functionality between them good without being in your face \"PRESS HERE TO POST TO REDDIT\" or \"UPLOAD TO IMGUR HERE\" about it.\n\n > Can other photo sites be used to post pictures to reddit?\n\nYes. But most of them suck. This isn't to say all of them suck, but a lot of them do.\n\n > Why is IMGUR most frequently used with reddit?\n\nImgur was made to, in the words of the founder, \"not suck\". It allows for hotlinking readily, and does not require linking back to the source or various other requirements and tricks that a lot of other image services require. It's also pretty lax on the whole \"adult content\" thing, and has some good tools in it for a person to keep track of their library of images. As such, it doesn't suck and is perfect for sites like Reddit and Digg. Digg's still around, right?\n\n > When I look at an IMGUR picture, on the right side is a gallery of thumbnails of other pictures. Do all of those other pictures belong to the person whose picture I just looked at on the left?\n\nDepends! If you're in an album _URL_5_ then yes! All of the images you see are uploaded by the same person. _URL_4_, all the images are from a particular subcategory (and often from a subreddit), but not necessarily the same person. If you are just at _URL_0_, then the images are from all over the place.\n\nJust as an example, compare the following\n\n_URL_2_ - the Warhammer Subreddit's imgur folder.\n\n_URL_3_ - Some image page on imgur's frontpage\n\n_URL_1_ - a album of pictures I took in the game Skyrim where I was pointing out that a particular feature exists in the game. \n\n\n\nNow, as for how the /r/ pages work on Imgur and how it knows what /r/ to put it in... I don't know. I'll admit that completely, I have no idea.\n",
"How are you still new to this when your account is 4 years old?",
"Out of curiosity, why do you capitalize imgur? The sites logo is all lowercase and its referred to in all lowercase, SO WHAT MAKES YOU SO SPECIAL, HUH? ",
"Another question: How the fuck do you pronounce imgur?\n\nIm-grrr? Imager? I.M.G.U.R?",
"Can I ask a follow up question? How does IMGUR make enough money to support itself? ",
" > I'm still new to the reddit world.\n\n > Redditor since:2008-09-22 (4 years, 7 months and 12 days)\n",
"IMGUR is more convenient for quickly uploading and sharing links. \n\nWith Picasa, the pics you upload are connected to your Google account. You have more control over who gets to see the pic or not.\n\nI think pics on Imgur are automatically deleted after no one has viewed the image for 3 months. Images on Picasa aren't deleted"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7zlyd/my_gift_to_reddit_i_created_an_image_hosting/",
"imgur.com",
"reddit.com/r/pics",
"http://minus.com/",
"min.us",
"http://i.imgur.com/1ZnRrJA.jpg"
],
[
"imgur.com/**gallery**/something",
"http://imgur.com/a/THuJS",
"http://imgur.com/r/warhammer",
"http://imgur.com/gallery/Lfwis4j",
"imgur.com/**r**/something",
"imgur.com/**a**/something"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6gqrbx
|
why is the election season in the us so long compared to election season is in european nations?
|
US election season usually last 18 months. Most European election seasons last about 2 months or so. Why is the disparity so large? Is it because the US is so much larger geographically?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gqrbx/eli5why_is_the_election_season_in_the_us_so_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"discwv5",
"disg6vw"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Two main reasons.\n\nThe first is that US elections are scheduled in advance. This means that people now well ahead of time when it will be, and the parties have timed their primaries and events to be free media advertising, extending out as far as they reasonably can before the deadline. In democracies with sudden elections like Britain, parties need leaders to be known and set, so the primary can't be a season, but has to be done before the earliest possible election date, which in a place like Britain today could be really, really soon after the last election.\n\nThe other is money. A long election cycle is financed by money, where parties can afford 3 years of steady advertising out of every 4 years. Places where there is less money in politics suffer from this less.\n\nThe US could settle this very easily if a law was passed not allowing state primaries to be held more than 7 days before the convention, so that they were all held essentially at once. And if it was illegal to advertise for a political cause except for in the 30 days before the convention.",
"Part of it is money. Since Citizens United political parties have had access to practically unlimited campaign funds. This allows candidates to spend more and campaign longer, sometimes two or three years out from an election.\n\nThe other factor is the state based primary system. US politics is highly polarized around two major parties and is not especially competitive at general elections. Some states vote Republican, some vote Democrat, and largely they don't switch sides. At a general election the interests of these states get ignored by both parties (one party doesn't care because they can't win, the other doesn't care because they can't lose). \n\nHowever, for unrelated reasons, the US also conducts open votes to decide party nominees. In a state that always votes Republican, the Republican primary is therefore the best chance for that state to get one or more Republican candidates to listen to that state's interests. The caveat is, candidates only stay engaged in the primary process as long as they have a viable opponent, which usually is only the first twenty states or so to hold primaries. After this, the winner is usually pretty clear so candidates stop listening to state interests. For this reason, various states have repeatedly pushed primaries earlier and earlier to try and stay one of the first states to hold primaries. Some states have even amended their constitutions to require themselves to hold primaries before any other states.\n\nThat more than anything extends the election process. You could overturn Citizens United and cut off the money, the election process would still be long and drawn out one because of how the system works. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
24kpe5
|
why can genetic hair loss not be reversed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24kpe5/eli5why_can_genetic_hair_loss_not_be_reversed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch83juk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because it causes the hair follicles to die, where other types of hair loss typically cause the hair follicles to go dormant. Genetic hair loss is caused by Dihydrotestosterone. There are drugs that prevent your body from making this compound. They have to be prescribed by a doctor, and there are many horror stories of people illegally acquiring drugs without prescription that claim to be these, but in-fact, are deadly counterfeits."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6fpy9m
|
why did religions like norse, greek, and egyptian die out but religions of jewish decent (jewish, christian, islamic) thrived?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6fpy9m/eli5_why_did_religions_like_norse_greek_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dik2tb9",
"dik3g29",
"dik508a",
"dikdmyg",
"dikgcm2"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The basic answer here is that Christianity and Islam became the official religions of empires that ended up conquering most of Europe and the Middle East. And, since they were monotheistic religions, they tended to replace rather than exist alongside the local religions in those places. \n\nJudaism is the odd man out since it survived less as a result of its own conquests, but because it is in a sense a prequel to Christianity and Islam, and so ended up being more like a \"sect\" of those two faiths in terms of how it was treated, rather than being absorbed or displaced. \n\nThere are, of course, other more specific factors as well, like the nature of the faiths, their own resistance to being co-opted, the displaced faiths being tied into political or social structures that were also outlawed, and particularities of history and culture. ",
"Norse, Greek and Egyptian religions were all overtaken by Christianity (although in the case of Egypt, Egyptian religion has blended somewhat with Greek because of Alexander the Great's conquest and the Ptolemaic dynasty).\n\nSo what you're asking is why did Christianity spread and take influence over those and other religions, which is complicated. In general though, Christianity, which had already made large advances in the Roman Empire, became the official religion of the Empire under Emperor Constantine, which hastened its spread throughout Europe, North Africa, and much of the Middle East. \n\nGermanic and Slavic areas that were outside the Empire each have unique reasons for conversions, but in general it was seen as advantageous to adopt Christianity both for political reasons and spiritual reasons.\n\nThe rise of Islam mainly supplanted other religions like Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and common polytheism through conquest. Waves of muslim armies conquered the middle east, then North Africa, and far into Europe before being partially turned back. Other large gains were made when the Mongols, who captured a huge portion of the world, converted to Islam.\n\nJudaism is truly unique in having survived for by far the longest time but also despite having been conquered and having its people dispersed many times over. The best explanation is that theologically it is a religion based on text and law and keeping a promise with god (covenant) to follow the law, which is perhaps harder to stamp out (despite the efforts of many conquering powers).",
"u/justthistwicenomore explained it pretty well. To add a bit more, Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are monotheistic, compared to the pagan religions that you mentioned which worshipped many gods. This was an important advantage as in some cases, such as Rome, people would worship only one of the many deities or [mystery religions](_URL_0_), which meant that there was no one god that clearly dominated.\n\nAnother way that, say, Christianity differed from paganism was that it had a well-defined concept of heaven and hell, as well as sins (most importantly of all, the sin of non-believing) that could prevent people from ascending to heaven, and worse yet an eternal punishment of hell. This provided a strong incentive for people to first of all adopt the religion and then remain loyal to it.\n\nFinally, Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions, which means that they actively recruit new members, either through force or through the act of preaching. That allowed these religions to spread rapidly compared to paganism, which generally did not proselytise.",
"I am not familiar with details of many of the religions OP mentions, but I can speak for Christianity. Christianity actively seeks converts. Christian sects send out missionaries with the express purpose of converting people to the faith. It also explicitly encourages (requires?) the faithful to produce many offspring -- \"be fruitful and multiply\". Generally speaking, I don't think the older pagan faiths OP mentions had as much emphasis on growing their numbers, so they dwindled by comparison, until they disappeared.",
"Most important reason: Seeking converts is a ***religious duty*** in Christianity and Islam, to the point where both make claims about inevitably taking over the world, but not in Norse, Greek, Egyptian, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
4107es
|
why are there no top german universities?
|
How come Germany is one of the biggest economies in the world, has invented many great things and has/had some of the best minds and scientists in the world and yet the first German University on [this](_URL_0_) list is the LMU Munich on place 29?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4107es/eli5_why_are_there_no_top_german_universities/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyyjg32",
"cyyjrsb"
],
"score": [
19,
16
],
"text": [
"A lot of rankings are partly based on research released, and as the vast majority of papers have to be produced in English if they want to be read, that puts non-English speaking universities at a disadvantage. That's one possible explanation anyway",
"_URL_0_\n\n > The Max Planck Society has a world-leading reputation as a science and technology research organization, with 33 Nobel Prizes awarded to their scientists, and are generally regarded as the foremost basic research organization in Europe and the world."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2015/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/-1"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Society"
]
] |
|
1ph1lu
|
how there can be so much welfare fraud, and why it's not taken care of
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ph1lu/how_there_can_be_so_much_welfare_fraud_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd27d9g",
"cd27k7z",
"cd27x3j",
"cd28722"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's actually a very small amount of welfare fraud, in the ballpark of 2%-3%.\n\nedit: \"According to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics website, based on the 2012 IPIA 3-Year average data report, fraud was prevalent in 2.67% of cases.\"",
"This sort of fraud does happen but it is also [prosecuted aggressively](_URL_0_).\n\nIn many states, you cannot buy alcohol, tobacco, or lottery tickets with EBT cards.",
"Welfare fraud is actually at threshold, which is to say it's so low, it's too expensive and statistically improbable to even bother trying to stomp it out.",
"Welfare when it was created was to allow women not to work so they could stay home with their children. It was part of the social project of the 1950s to keep women in the home. \n\nToday welfare does not provide enough income to fully realise that plan but the intention of the system was still to allow a section on our population to not work. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.fbi.gov/baltimore/press-releases/2013/nine-retailers-arrested-on-food-stamp-fraud-charges"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1lwkd6
|
why is france a permanent member of the un security council, but not germany?
|
seeing that germany is bigger in every aspect.
except maybe unofficial influence in former colonies. And WWII.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lwkd6/eli5_why_is_france_a_permanent_member_of_the_un/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc3gp7a",
"cc3h0fs",
"cc3ji3y"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The UN was created at the end of the Second World War, partly to try to ensure that a global conflict never occurred again. At that time not only was Germany being punished for 10 years of Nazism, but the German economy was in ruins, the country and its capital city were partitioned and permanently occupied, and few could forsee that within a couple of decades that West Germany would become one of the world's strongest economies.\n\nOn the other hand, Britain was still head of the largest empire the world had ever seen, and its resolve in keeping a western front open, along with the military might of the USA and USSR, had all proved absolutely decisive in winning the war. So these three countries were natural choices as permanent members.\n\nJapan was also being punished in the same way that Germany was, and that's the main reason for China's inclusion. China was officially allied with the USA and UK during the war, and Chiang Kai-Shek was seen at Allied summits almost as frequently as Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt. Again, at the time few people foresaw a Communist revolution in China and nobody could predict that by the 21st century it would also be on the way to becoming one of the world's largest economies.\n\nAlthough France had been partly conquered by Germany during the war, it was still one of the world's Great Powers in 1945, commanding an empire only a little smaller than Britain's.\n\nTL;DR - the Security Council's permanent members were created based upon the five most powerful Allied countries in the world at the time.",
"The UN was founded in the aftermath of WWII.\n\nAnd at the time, even though France and the UK were decimated by two world wars, they were still seen was major colonial powers. France still control much of Africa and Indochina after the war, while Germany had nothing.\n\nThe decolonization movement in the 1960s and 1970s made the waning of French and British power more apparent.",
"Because France was on the winning side in World War 2 and Germany wasn't. \n\nTo the victors go the spoils. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cdj2tj
|
when videogames are in development for years on end and there's new generations of consoles, how the hell do they keep up with adjusting the quality and graphics? e.g : kingdom hearts 3, ff15, etc. do those videogames just constantly rework their textures ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cdj2tj/eli5_when_videogames_are_in_development_for_years/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etu7wdq"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
" > do the devs just constantly rework or update the graphics of their game?\n\nNo, they develop with the idea of what kind of graphics that will be possible in that time. When it comes to 3D models; they are made at the \"highest\" quality and then reworked to \"lower\" quality a game can support. You can do this yourself in Blender if you want. Also since majority of games are developed for consoles who have their hardware set for the next 6 to 7 years, the developers don't need to worry about not keeping pace with hardware.\n\n > How do they manage to not release something that's 10 years behind in technology (including AI and other features)\n\nBecause either A: those features are already built into the engine, or B: they themselves develop those features. The game F. E.A.R - who's more than a decade old - still has better AI than most, if not all, shooters."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4nrxsw
|
why can't red, blue, and yellow be created by mixing other colors? is there some law of physics that makes this so, or is it just that no one has figured out just how to do it yet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nrxsw/eli5_why_cant_red_blue_and_yellow_be_created_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d46fieb",
"d46gk5a"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are two types of colour mixing to consider, additive and subtractive.\n\nAdditive is how TVs and computer monitors work. They have tiny little elements that emit different colours right next to each other (Edit - or more accurately with modern displays, the elements filter the light shining through them). The three colours they have are red, green and blue. The reason they use these colours is because our eyes have distinct receptors that detect them. When our eyes detect both green and red light together, our brains interpret that as yellow. Blue and green together is turquoise, and red and blue together is purple.\n\nWhen you're making colours like this, there just isn't any way to make red from just blue and green. There has to be actual red light for eyes to see red. Likewise you can't make blue or green without actually using blue and green.\n\nThe other type of colour mixing is subtractive. This is how paints work. Instead of emitting light, paints absorb or reflect different colours of light. White reflects all colours, black absorbs all. Red reflects red, and absorbs everything else. Blue absorbs everything but blue. Yellow reflects red and green (which as I mentioned before, your brain interprets as yellow when seen together), and absorbs blue.\n\nWith this system we can make other colours by mixing paints so additional colours are absorbed. For example mixing yellow and blue makes green because the yellow paint absorbs red light, the blue paint absorbs blue, leaving just green light that gets reflected.\n\nIt actually is possible to make red and blue using subtractive mixing. But only if you start with colours that are between them. Cyan reflects blue and green light, magenta reflects red and blue, and yellow reflects red and green. Using these colours as your \"primary colours\" allows you to make red by mixing magenta and yellow. They both reflect red, but the magenta absorbs green and the yellow absorbs blue. So if you mix them together, only red ends up getting reflected.",
"It has to do with the way the eye sees color, not physics.\n\nThe human eye has three types of cones, or color receptors. One of them responds strongly to red light, another strongly to green light, and the other responds strongly to blue light. If you take a color like yellow, there are technically two ways to make it: the first is to send yellow light, which will activate both the red and green cones a bit. The other is to send a mix of red and green light, so that the cones are activated roughly in the same way they would be if the light had been yellow.\n\nSo if you have red, green and blue light, you can \"fake\" any color you want: you just look at how much color X stimulates each of your cones, and you send the corresponding amount of light. But this won't work with other colors: if you have, say, orange, green and purple, how do you make red? In order to see red, you have to stimulate red cones a lot, and the others as little as possible, but none of the colors you have stimulates *only* red, so it can't work. Orange stimulates green too much, and purple stimulates blue too much (fun fact: there is actually no purple wavelength, it's a color our brain makes up when there's red and blue but no green).\n\nNow, that was for light. As far as mixing paints go, it works the opposite way: each paint you have \"eats\" a color. So the best system is to have paint that eats blue (aka yellow), one that eats green (aka magenta), and one that eats red (aka cyan). Any other palette will have trouble representing yellow, magenta and cyan, just like any other light palette will have trouble with red, green and blue.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4r7eis
|
how does the atmosphere stay "mixed" since different gasses have different mass?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4r7eis/eli5how_does_the_atmosphere_stay_mixed_since/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4yskl4",
"d4ytovn"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"This was asked on /r/askscience [here](_URL_0_) and I think the answers there do a much better job than anything I could do.\n\nBasically:\n\n > [...] there are two competing forces at work: gravity and diffusion. Gravity tends to separate out the molecules and diffusion tends to mix them evenly.\n\n > Molecular speeds follow a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, but roughly the average molecular speed at standard temperature and pressure is about 400-500 m/s. The molecules are moving quickly enough that diffusion dominates over gravity.",
"Gases are lighter forms of liquids. \n\nThink of it kind of like a slow blender with a lot of different liquids in it. The earth is like the blades in the middle while the liquids are the gas atmosphere around it. As the earth spins, the atmosphere also spins but is mixed together."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/muzht/why_does_air_stay_nice_and_mixed_throughout_the/"
],
[]
] |
||
8au961
|
why can raw white mushrooms sit out for days, but have a room temp safe life of 3 hours once fried?
|
What's the difference?
You've got raw white mushrooms and you can keep them out of the fridge for days and they'll be fine.
But fry them in some oil (which doesn't need refrigeration) and suddenly the recommendation is 2-3 hours room temp before you run the risk of bacteria and food poisoning.
Please explain, thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8au961/eli5_why_can_raw_white_mushrooms_sit_out_for_days/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dx1octa",
"dx1u6wy"
],
"score": [
17,
6
],
"text": [
"If you watch a mushroom as you gently fry it, you'll see the point that it starts to produce moisture inside the cup. That's caused by the cell walls breaking down, until then it's fairly robust and bacteria can't get in.",
"they are structured to survive the environment, like fruits. cut them open and they will degrade, no cooking required. mince them up and see how long they last (not very). cooking has the same effect of destroying cell structures that keep nutrients in and microbes out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4aeoj0
|
how are icbms detected?
|
In movies, they show adversaries discussing their enemies intercontinental ballistic missiles being fueled, raised into position, or some other highly specific detail. Let's say missiles are being prepared to fire. When do we know it? Is it just radar, or are there other ways of monitoring? Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4aeoj0/eli5_how_are_icbms_detected/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0zpinf",
"d0zpks1",
"d0zqnw4"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I worked for Lockheed Martin space systems for about 3 years in the missile defense department, so I know a thing or two or a hundred about this. In the past, we could use spy satellites and reconnaissance flyovers to see missiles being moved and prepared, as the process to prepare a launch was quite laborious. Now, with more modern missiles - since around the 60's - with the advent of [solid fueled rockets like the Minuteman](_URL_1_) that can be on a hot standby, we can essentially see that there is a missile emplacement, but have no real warning previous to a launch. In other words, we know where the launch facilities are, and that's about it. This is for land-based missiles; when you're talking about submarine based missiles [like Polaris](_URL_0_), we don't even have that.\n\nNowadays, we use radar (as you proposed) and ground-facing satellites [like SBIRS](_URL_2_) to monitor for launches. The big problem with radar is that it's limited to line-of-sight with the horizon (the radar can't see missiles until they come over the horizon), so ground-facing satellites are the very first things that will detect a launch, but we still won't know until the missile is launched that an attack is happening.",
"Generally in conflict areas the area is already under the national surveillance systems lens. Generally, it's important to identify and keep tabs on a problem nations threatening assets. A combination of intelligence gathering, satellite, sensor, radar and good ol boots on the ground helps with surveillance.",
"Short answer has two parts. Radar, and satellites. \n \nRadar is the old method. Giant radar dishes like those at RAF Fylingdales bounce radar off the upper atmosphere, searching for the faint return of a dense metal missile flying upwards. \n \nSatellites are the new method. ICBM's are small rockets, and rockets are very hot. The launch causes a massive heat spike on a thermal camera, big enough to easily see from space. By searching for heat blooms, you can easily spot launches as they happen, rather than after the missile has launched and is in the air. Spy satellites can also spot silos being opened and prepared in the hours before a first strike, as well as other war-prep activities that would set off alarm bells."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman",
"http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/sbirs.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
45zztu
|
how burning data to a disc works.
|
And what makes CD-RWs capable of being rewritten while CD-Rs aren't.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45zztu/eli5_how_burning_data_to_a_disc_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d01cz3d",
"d01jnis",
"d01pb5n",
"d01pkl7",
"d01rkoz",
"d01vxzh"
],
"score": [
1305,
43,
38,
146,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"The CD has little beads of a chemical that react to the laser. If the laser zaps a bead, it changes the reflective property. So the drive can write 0s and 1s by zapping or not zapping each bead. (one bead is one bit). Then when it goes to read them, it can tell by the reflection whether it's 0 or 1.\n\nCDRW has chemicals that can be zapped a second time to reset them. ",
"With a normal CD-R, the laser blasts holes in the reflective layer. \n\nRewritable CDs actually have a layer of metal that can be re-flowed. Heat it up a little, and it loses its reflectivity. Heat it up a lot, and it \"resets\" the disc to full shiny. \n\n",
"CD-RW has been explained elsewhere in this thread, but I want to explain something related, and also pretty cool. I don't know if you remember the [MiniDisc](_URL_1_). This was a small disc (or optical diskette) that could be read like a CD, but was recorded like a diskette. The laser was used to heat the metal film on the disk, which made it magnetic. This allowed for altering the polarity of the metallic layer before it cooled down. This metallic layer with all the different polarities was then read by the laser, with each polarity change being 1's or 0's.\n\nHow is this possible, you may ask? The laser surely can't read magnetism! Well, in fact, it can! The laser would shift polarization for each magnetic polarity change, due to a physical phenomenon called the [Kerr effect](_URL_0_).\n\nBut if you have never heard about the MiniDisc, I don't blame you. This was popular in the early 90s, until the MP3 player entered the music scene, and killed the MiniDisc.\n\nEDIT: Even though the sound is the same, K and C changes the context...",
"You guys are close! I wonder if this will get seen!!...\n\nThe blank CD has, on top of it, a metallic reflective layer which is spattered onto the plastic, which already has a spiral pattern molded into it, so you get a spiral reflective surface. Under that, a vegetable dye layer is sprayed, then a plastic coat again. The laser, when burning, has nothing but a spiral to follow. Which it is designed to see through the dye. No beads. It simply pokes holes in the vegetable dye, to allow the reading laser to see the shiny surface underneath. There are longer holes and shorter ones for ones and zeros. There is no poking holes in the reflective layer. The holes are poked in the vegetable dye. The explanation of CD-RW is pretty accurate though!!\n\nEDIT: Revised first sentence due to a larger error margin I now see in other posts.. ;-)",
"Basically, a laser burns a series of pits into a spinning disk. When read, the reader interprets the pits as 1's, and not-pits as 0's, and the rest of the computer turns that into language.\n\n(01101000-01100101-01101100-01101100-01101111 reads \"H-e-l-l-o\", for instance. [Check.](_URL_0_))\n\nThese two images make it obvious:\n\n* [Cross-section 1.](_URL_1_)\n\n* [Cross-section 2.](_URL_2_)",
"You are making a very tiny photograph. A CD-R uses the same chemicals similar to what makes a B & W photograph. When that chemical is exposed to light it changes, they've made sure this chemical is only very sensitive to very bright light of specific wavelengths (the writing laser). When it gets enough exposure it turns dark so that when it's hit with a lower power laser (reading laser) of a different wavelength, it won't reflect much light back while the areas that didn't turn black will reflect a decent amount of light back.\n\nRW's have a method by which they can be reset."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_effect",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniDisc"
],
[],
[
"http://www.unit-conversion.info/texttools/convert-text-to-binary/",
"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OhNOttJ1TN4/T5wvYrtaoNI/AAAAAAAAB5E/qREd7jidim0/s1600/Cd+crosssection.gif",
"http://www.fujifilm.com/products/storage/img/cdr/pht_03.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
2w5534
|
why are there no heated snow shovels? i feel like this product is a no brainer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w5534/eli5_why_are_there_no_heated_snow_shovels_i_feel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"connv6o",
"connz7j"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"My experience with shoveling has taught me that wet snow sticks to the shovel, making it harder to move or throw the snow. A heated shovel would take normally cold, \"dry\" snow and turn it into heavy wet slush that sticks to the shovel.",
"Surely it's easier to shovel snow than water. Seems like the last thing you'd want to do is melt the snow before moving it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1wzaa3
|
is latency independent from bandwidth?
|
If the pipe is made bigger (increase bandwidth), wouldnt a packet that is queued have more room to leave? I understand that increasing bandwidth does not remove propagation time.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wzaa3/eli5_is_latency_independent_from_bandwidth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf6popv",
"cf6qxrj"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"When the pipe is not saturated, latency and bandwidth should be almost completely independent.\n\nWhen the pipe is saturated - like if you're downloading several files from fast servers at once - then the average latency can increase. In that scenario, increasing the bandwidth can lower the average latency down to closer to the latency you'd get with an unutilized pipe.\n",
"Not necessarily. Think of your pipe as a highway. An eight lane highway has more bandwidth than a four lane highway (it can carry more cars) but if the speed limit on both of them is 70 mph, then it's going to take you an hour to travel to a destination that's 70 miles away even if you're the only car on the highway. If you clog that highway with cars (your bandwith now goes down), then you're not going to be able to go 70 mph and your time to get there is going to take longer. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4tt02u
|
how do we know exactly that the bee population around the world is decreasing? how do we calculate the number of bees to begin with?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tt02u/eli5_how_do_we_know_exactly_that_the_bee/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5k0dd6",
"d5k1mz9",
"d5k3qfm",
"d5k40m7",
"d5k4rei",
"d5k4uso",
"d5k7hc8",
"d5k7rje",
"d5keduk",
"d5kek3d",
"d5kf3q0",
"d5kfx7z",
"d5kg0ny",
"d5kid6f",
"d5kimh3",
"d5kkluz",
"d5kl5oi",
"d5klxhr",
"d5ko3kn",
"d5kofqd"
],
"score": [
2995,
3,
4,
8,
684,
3,
10,
2,
1378,
8,
2,
3,
2,
2,
49,
4,
7,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Bee keepers know how many bees they used to have, and how many bees they have now. Commercial bee keeping is a huge industry (many bee keepers rent their bees out to farmers, for example), and when commercial bee keepers, amateur bee keepers and people who plain notice bees notice colonies are collapsing, it's worth paying attention to. ",
"A huge amount of the bee population is captive. Beekeepers drive around a bunch of bees to various farms that they're hired to pollinate. They know how many bees they have. It's a massive agricultural industry.",
"The reality is that the european honey bee is in no real danger, it's a domesticated animal. What we need to worry about are native bees. There are many documented native bees disappearing altogether.",
"In my country it is done by the government. Since it is a huge insutry here there are many regulations. Industrial beekeeping is a standardized and controlled work, each bee hive has its own registration like number for the houses but most like a plate number for cars also some areas are restricted to local beekeepers. In each term in the begging of the spring number of the hives that will be used in the season are reported to the autorities along with plates and places it will visit during the year. Also some government offices and universities keeps the track of the yearly honey production which indicates the form of the hives like the number of the bees in the hive after correlating with the climate data.",
"**TL:DR** Both wild bees and honeybees face different challenges and both are critical to us, but the situation is not as dire as sensationalist media would have you assume. \n\nIn order to better understand the situation and the problems associated with bee extinction we need to better understand bees. Bees are a really diverse group of insects, consisting of tens of thousands of species that live in just about every ecosystem on this planet. For humans we can classify bees into two main categories - the bees we use to pollinate our crops (e.g. honeybees), and the wild bees that pollinate wildflowers, flowering trees, and other flowering plants found in nature.\n\n* **European Honeybees:** The non-native species to North America that we use pollinate our crops. [Honeybees](_URL_4_) face a number of challenges to their continued survival, including but not limited to: colony collapse disorder, inbreeding, parasites (diseases), and poor diet. One solution would be to improve management. Think of honeybees as a domesticated animal, one that we have unfortunately mismanaged (e.g. like certain dog breeds). We have the power and knowledge to improve their care and husbandry. Without these guys we wouldn't have easy cheap access to many of the fruits & vegetables we know and love. But as others have pointed out we wouldn't see a *complete* collapse of our food system, plenty of food is *wind* or *self* pollinated (e.g. wheat, rice). Because honeybees don't come from North America their hives often outcompete native wild bees, and therefore are considered invasive in certain areas. These guys are true colonial nesters, with a hive consisting of one queen and thousands of female worker bees. \n\n* **Wild bees:** These native species come in all shapes and sizes. Some are solitary and some are semi-colonial nesters, thus their \"hives\" consist of a female queen and maybe a dozen or so female workers (if any). Wild bees are critical to maintaining a functioning ecosystem and are responsible for pollinating the *vast majority* of the flowering plants we see in nature. They face a number of challenges including: habitat loss & degradation, loss of flower forage diversity, loss of nesting sites, climate change, pesticides-herbicides, and over competition by invasive honeybees. Examples include [bumblebees](_URL_2_), alfalfa bees, mason bees, orchard bees, & solitary bees. Bumblebees are generally less aggressive and don't sting. Some wild bees lack stingers altogether (e.g. many of the solitary bees). Some bumble bees are parasitic and simply live to attack other bees or insects.\n\n[More on bees](_URL_1_)\n\n**How would losing wild bees impact our ecosystems?**\n\nThe important thing is that many wild bees species have established themselves the only pollinator for a particular plant species. If that bee species goes extinct, so does the plant. Its not enough to just introduce different wild bee species or rely on honeybees to pollinate those flower patches...because they tend to either mess up the pollination process or f*ck up the flower so it can't develop. That is why each specific bee species tends to be so critical. Perhaps one or two missing from any given ecosystem would be ok, but as you start to lose more bee species the whole structure of the ecosystem will unravel. \n\nWild cees are integral to ecosystems, collectively they are a [keystone species](_URL_5_). Without them the whole functioning of the food web as we know it would crumble. The reason why they have become so integral to the functioning of healthly ecosystems is because we are literally living in the \"age of the flower\". To put this in perspective there are more [flowering plant](_URL_3_) species (~350,000 species) than non-flowering plant species (~1000 gymnosperms, ferns ~12,000...) put together. Many flowers can self-pollinate (e.g. with wind), but many also pollinate using pollinators. There are many different kinds of pollinators like flies, butterflies, moths bats, mammals - but bees are really the specialists here. They are the most abundant and diverse group of pollinators. Some bees are generalists and can visit many different flowering species. Other bees are more specific, and can only pollinate one kind of flower. These relationships are very specific - the plant relies on the bee as much as the bee relies on the plant. Without one, the other cannot exist. Thus it is critical to understand each species and its role in their local environment. If one bee species is threatened with extinction, it could set off a domino effect whereby the plants that it pollinates also become extinct. \n\nIts unlikely that we would lose *all* species of bee to extinction. None the less we are seeing the beginnings of some significant species loss as we move deeper into this century. Some wild bee species are already endangered and are facing critical losses. Its a difficult situation because we are talking about thousands of species, some being affected more than others, and each being affected in different ways. For example, some wild bees seem to be more affected by habitat loss and degradation, whereas others can survive in more urban environments. For others, climate change is seriously impacting their survival. There isn't a clear single solution because wild bee population are being impacted by so many different things. \n\n[Wild bees and climate change](_URL_7_)\n\n**How would losing honey bees impact our crops and food?**\n\nMost of our food comes from wind-pollinated crops (e.g. cereals and grains). While we would se the disappearance of some fruits we would be able to hand pollinate some crops...they would be very expensive but they wouldn't disappear altogether. Generally, I would think we would increase the production of wind-pollinated crops to compensate.\n\nFrom: u/TDawgUK91 from [this post](_URL_6_)...\n\n*\"Only a very small proportion of our food depends on honey bees. To give some numbers: Crops which benefit to any extent from animal pollination account for 35% of total food production by volume. This means that yields of those crops would be lower in the abscence of animal pollination.*\n\n*However, yields for most of them would not be zero. It is estimated that animal pollination is directly responsible for between 5 and 8% of current global agricultural production by volume. So if you lost all animal pollinators overnight, that is how much less food there would be. Clearly this is not going to wipe out humanity, although the impact wouldn't be equally distributed - some people would no doubt face severe problems, and farmers whose crops happen to be among those most dependent on pollination would lose their livlihoods. We could probably also replace some of this by other means.*\n\n*Furthermore, honey bees are only two species out of many thousands of pollinators - including 20,000 other species of wild bee alone, and also some species of flies, butterflies, moths, wasps, beetles, thrips, birds, bats and other vertebrates. I couldn't find an exact figure on the relative importance, but \"both wild and managed pollinators have globally significant roles in crop pollination, although their relative contributions differ according to crop and location.\" Note that in this context, 'managed pollinators' includes both honey bees and a few other species of bee. So if honey bees went extinct, the impact would be even less still.*\n\n*So, overall, it's quite clear that honey bees going extinct wouldn't kill off humans. It would probably be very bad for some people, but to the average Western consumer the only noticable difference would be some fruits and nuts become more expensive [or non-existant]. My main source was [this report](_URL_0_)\"*\n",
"Biologist do actual field research. This is not limited to just bees. They can proceed rely on local contacts to locate bee hives, look for bee swarms, and probably those that specialize in bee research have a host of tricks of the trade for locating bees, estimating wild populations and the like, honed over centuries of experience.\n\nThey can give that data to someone good at mapping and they can see if these cell phone towers really do have an affect. They can look for factors in colony collapse disorder, and whether domesticated populations are responding different than wild populations.",
"We don't know the exact population. It's a guestimate. \n\nFYI, the issue with disappearing bees is a direct result of humans interfering with the bee's natural tendencies. In the wild, the bees are able to evolve and adapt (rapidly, I might add). They're doing just fine in nature. \n\nThe captive bees farmed for honey and moved around the country for pollinating mono crops aren't allowed to evolve naturally, and are fed a horrible diet. Most commercial beekeepers buy or create inbreed bees which haven't been able to evolve and adapt to survive in the environment that's evolving around them. These bees are dying off.... These are the bees (colony collapse disorder) that you hear about in the media. Much like the Irish potato famine, the gene pool is becoming too shallow. The commercial bee, and pharmaceutical industries are being irresponsible, for the purposes of turning bigger profits. That is the price we pay for oranges, almonds, honey, and other products on demand and at scale. ",
"We don't know the exact number of bees on our planet. For that matter, we dont' know the exact number of cows. But we'd know if an exhorbitant number of cows start dying. And we know it's happening to bees.",
"My wife works for USGS and calculates wild animal populations. \n\nFirst, they map historically where the animal has been seen. Then they collect reports from the public, universities, and other government agencies that have seen the animal. Then they make a computer model of where they think the animal should be, based on environment, plant cover, etc. A simple one for butterflies I've seen her do is Butterfly X eats plant Y. Plant Y has this thermographic signature, pull up satellite data, I bet that butterfly is around areas where I think that plant is. Then you send people to look, and test your model to see how good it is.\n\nIf the animal is really endangered, they do a survey, go everywhere they think it is and survey. If there is too many to realistically survey they do a random sample. This is just like the polling used to predict elections. There is 1,000 acres we think it could be at, we randomly select 20 and go. Now there is a ton of spacial statistics that goes into that, but that is the basic idea. Also, they might do \"block\" polling to make sure they go to different areas, or areas they think will help them model better in the future.\n\nA team of biologists goes out to the survey cites, and looks for them. Ideally you send the same people to the same place at the same time every year, so you have an good idea what is happening with the population. Due to lack of funding (sequester ruined--put a huge hole in 100's of years of scientific data collection), fires, changes in administrations, that doesn't always happen. It is never perfect, some land is private, military, impossible to access, or too sensitive to send people into every year. But, especially with new drone technology and satellite data, they have gotten extremely accurate in their predictions in the last 10 years. ",
"My grandfather has always kept general records of his hives. How many he has, how much honey he gets from each, stuff like that. His current notebook dates back to the early 90s. He claims his losses are the same now as they've always been. He says people have been claiming bees are disappearing since he was a kid helping his grandmother with her hives. He firmly believes it's all just media hype. I'm inclined to believe him. ",
"A big threat to bee colonies is the Verroa _URL_0_ hasn't reached us yet in Australia but the experts say it's only matter of time.Our air and seaports have what are known as Alert Hives which are situated around these facilities which are checked every day or so by quarantine officers because as the mite enters the country they automatically go to these hive as a starting point to begin breeding.\n\nBut as I say the experts say we can't win in the end.",
"A partial answer, describing how commercial bee populations are monitored (from _URL_0_):\n\n\"Our National Survey is released annually to study beekeeping management practices using epidemiological methods. We poll thousands of beekeepers every year to find out as much as we can about their beekeeping management practices. We then compare the rates of loss among beekeepers who did or did not use a specific management practices. Now that we have several years of data, we are beginning to look for patterns across different beekeepers with varying performance results in each region to start to understand what combinations of management practices work best at keeping colonies alive. The results from our surveys rely entirely on the willingness of beekeepers to participate in the survey.\"",
"Commercial bee keepers are a big industry. They travel around the nation bringing their bees to farms. They set them up and the bees pollenate the flowers for the produce. They get paid by the farmers. Everything from avacado to oranges. So say a bee keeper has 1000 hives and sets them out then a few days later thr bees start to die off and the hives become ill. They can easily count their losses. Over the last decade the bees have been dying. Which we are beginning to find out is pesticides, and or a type of fertilizer. Something us causing thr bees to get sick. Sick bees causes other problems, such as suceptablility to mites and other bee and hive illnesses.",
"You count them from time to time and if the number gets smaller then you know it's decreasing.",
"Full Time Beekeeper here:\n\nWe send in state and nationally sponsored surveys every year to help track losses. \n\nThe PA State Beekeepers ran a survey last year, along with National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) and The Bee Informed Partnership (BIP). These surveys usually come in the form of \"How many colonies did you start with at X time of year? How many did you have by Y Time of year?\" This helps us determine if we are losing more bees in the winter (cold being the main stressor) or, say, in the summer (parasitic mites being the suspected main stressor). The main issue with these surveys is that they are voluntary. I believe PA had one of the best turn outs at.20% response. \n\nWe also require you to register your colonies here whether you have 1 or 10,001 hives. Since that covers the majority of beekeepers in the state, the state inspectors have been asking the questions directly at each apiary they inspect. The only problem is that the budget only has enough money to pay for 7 state apiary inspectors, so there is no way they can get to every beekeeper every year.\n\n[Relevent Article regarding National Surveys](_URL_0_)\n\nWild colonies are much more difficult to asses for obvious reasons. I can say anecdotally that the honey bee colonies we remove from houses and trees tend to do much better than the ones we purchase.\n\nEDIT: Point regarding lack of state inspectors\n",
"I didn't see it here so here's a way some animal populations are counted using statistics:\n\n1. Go out and capture some number of animals. Tag and release them.\n\n2. Go back some time later, after the tagged animals have had a chance to mix back into the rest of the population. Capture a bunch again.\n\nYou check the percentage of animals you caught this time that have tags. From this you can infer that that's the same as the percent of tagged animals in the total population. You know how many you tagged the first time around, so do the math and you have an estimate of the total population.\n\nExample: round 1 you tagged 100 pikachus. round 2 you catch 100 pikachus and 20 have tags. From this you can guess that 20% are tagged, so if 100 got tags, there's a total of 500 pikachus in this population.",
"I worked for a tv show where we did a an episode about saving the bees and it was my job to research everythig, speak to the experts, and consult with commercial beekeeper. The short answer is that we measure the decline based off of a very quantifiable decrease in the millions of commercial bee colonies across the globe. \n\n A commercial colony of bees generally ranges from 20,000 to 60,000 bees. This can be confirmed by weight and I believe that's where these estimates originated. Once a colony hits 50-60000 bees, beekeepers split the hive into two and the population grows again. Beekeepers check their hives by opening them and inspecting the frames. A practiced beekeeper can know how many bees are in a hive by looking at one of the 10 frames. A healthy frame with have eggs and larva as well as certain honeycomb patterns denoting bee activity. A commercial beekeeper can immediately see if a population is struggling. They can also see if they're losing money and their bees have died.\n\nSick bees will also abandon their hives in large swarms. This is a telltale sign that something going on in the area is creating a harmful environment for bees -- could be pesticides, temperatures, etc.\n\nFun bonus: never wear black around bees. They'll think you're a bear or skunk, their only predators. Also the smell of bananas incites their attack feramones.",
"I'm not a bee keeper. I'm not a person that knows or cares about bees. But one morning I went into my great room, and dispersed through it were 327 bees. I know because I had to pick them up. My landlord said they had a hive in my wall AC unit, but since I didn't turn it on or spray bug repellent near it, I don't know why they went all suicide bombers in my house. \n\n327 dead overnight. This was about 3 years ago. Something is going down. The bees are the first to know. ",
"Global honey bee populations aren't in decline. It also depends if you are asking about managed (or farmed) bees or wild bees. \n\nBee farmers usually report the number of beehives to a national agency. This shows us that the number of hives managed globally has been increasing well over the last few decades. \n\nAs for wild bees, it's difficult to be completely accurate. Scientists who monitor wild bee populations do it by sampling statistics: for example, they count the number and size of hives found in one square mile of forest. They make the assumption that the same number of hives can be found in every other square mile of the same forest, and multiply that per square mile count for that same forest. They then do the same for other forests, savannahs, deserts, etc.\n\nThe US is experiencing a decline in number of managed hives, which is what you are referring to. Globally, we are fine.",
"Which we are seeing the beginnings of some fruits we would se the disappearance of some significant species loss as we can about their beekeeping management practices."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/Pollination_Summary%20for%20policymakers_EN_.pdf",
"http://nativeplants.msu.edu/pollination",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_bee",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fxfo2/eli5_if_honey_bees_went_extinct_why_would_humans/",
"http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/bumblebees-being-crushed-climate-change"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"mite.It"
],
[
"beeinformed.com"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://beeinformed.org/2016/05/19/interpreting-and-understanding-the-differences-in-honey-bee-colony-loss-numbers-from-different-national-surveys/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8d90us
|
what causes those strange patterns on digital images of monitors and screen windows that seem to morph when you zoom in and out on them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8d90us/eli5_what_causes_those_strange_patterns_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxl7vbg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Do you think Moire?\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern"
]
] |
||
7eynab
|
how do smelling salts wake you up after you’ve been unconscious?
|
Also as a side note, could you sniff them to keep you awake?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7eynab/eli5_how_do_smelling_salts_wake_you_up_after/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq8bng9",
"dq8d1ja",
"dq8diw1",
"dq8dpcg",
"dq8f8wg",
"dq8fgeb",
"dq8fp1u",
"dq8ho7i",
"dq8iaey",
"dq8ikb7",
"dq8iqlm",
"dq8j491",
"dq8js77",
"dq8k0dj",
"dq8kk5w",
"dq8leo2",
"dq8lqsq",
"dq8n21h",
"dq8x1xp",
"dq9ha1g",
"dq9iomv",
"dq9n3f5",
"dq9p0px"
],
"score": [
11050,
14,
3807,
32,
596,
115,
4,
190,
24,
51,
37,
2,
9,
11,
25,
3,
8,
7,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They release ammonia gas. Ammonia is an irritant that triggers an inhalation reflex, which also increases heart rate. This cancels the physical effects of fainting - a reduced heart rate, breathing and metabolism in general. \n\nIt won't keep you awake, but it can keep you from passing out in certain situations. ",
"They were mainly for fainting, which is somewhat different to unconsciousness, not least as some of the fainters were probably being melodramatic (such were the times) and the salts were unpleasant enough for people to chose another way of expressing their distress.",
"Smelling salts are truly vile. It’s very strong ammonia. It doesn’t “smell bad” it’s a chemical attack in your sinuses that you can’t ignore, like tear gas or something.\n\nYears ago when I worked in the ER there was a particular challenge. Habitual drunks would come in literally comatose. If you monitored them and gave them some IV fluids they would always wake up safely, in time. BUT a small number would come in drunk AND with a life threatening brain injury (often with little or external trauma, from falling down...drunk) . How to tell the difference? You can’t do head CTs in every drunk in a busy ER (and some habitual drunks would get like 80 CTs a year). Enter the supertucci brain injury severity test. I would crack one of these and cram (I mean gently place) it up one nostril. If they couldn’t muster the 10 neurons to pull it out (and they really wanted to pull it out since it is so obnoxious) it was OFF to the CT scanner for a sometimes life saving scan. On average my ER has one case a month of a drunk who didn’t sober up over time, got a CT and only then we realized he also had a brain injury we’ve been sitting in for hours. I had zero. 25 years later I still feel good about that. \n\nEdit: drinks to drunks (sorry on phone)",
"Typically they contain ammonia, which forces a reflex. It doesn’t always work, and they’re used to keep people awake rather than waking people. If you ever get a hit of ammonia you’ll understand just how potent the reaction is.\n\n",
"When I was about to faint in the hospital they had me sit down and sniff an alcohol wipe. Why did that work?",
"i used to be a sideline guy for the toronto argos (football) team and the guys were using them like crazy. before the game, during the game, between plays, they were getting hyped off them. i took a couple just to mess around with and they are really something unique. imagine smelling a combination of gasoline, vinegar, and other acidic stuff. it goes straight to your head and kinda jolts you",
"You should not use these to keep you awake. They contain ammonia, a toxic irritant. There's a reason they're only used on unconscious people, and sparingly. Longer exposures can be harmful. ",
"So when I was taught to examine cranial nerves in medical school, I was told to not use the always-available alcohol wipes to test the olfactory nerve (the nerve that lets you smell things.) Reason being noxious stimuli actually trigger sensation in the nasal mucosa, which is the trigeminal nerve, rather than stimulating the olfactory nerve. Smelling salts cause pain in the nasal mucosa, not an actual smell, that jolts you back into consciousness. Kind of like being slapped or getting a bucket of cold water dumped on you. \n\nEdit: ELI5. Right. Sorry. Smelling salts don’t smell you awake, they hurt the inside of your nose to wake you up. ",
"The sense of smell is linked directly to your sense of memory and emotion, it doesn't \"re-route\" through the frontal cortex. Thus you can deliver a jolt \"directly\" to the \"inner\" part of the brain that can kickstart the cortex.\n\nInterestingly, or perhaps rather morbidly, this can be used in \"fake torture\". Burn some pigskin with a blowtorch as you place a freezing cold metal rod on a blind-folded person's skin. Instant brain-torture.\n\n\n\n",
"I was 17 and got hit in the arm by a hockey puck when I was on the sidelines. It hurt but not terribly. About two minutes later I start feeling nauseous and practice is almost over. \n\nI felt too sick to walk to the lockers and I sat in a chair in the office. The coach starts calling for a nurse and I’m like WTF is his problem. I’m just a little nauseous... and that’s when I realize I can’t physically respond to his questions. \n\nThe next thing I remember is the smell of the ammonia from the smelling salts and waking up. It had been over five minutes since I offishully passed out. That was the second time they had tried to use them to wake me. The first time they said I briefly woke up and passed out again. Don’t remember that part. \n\nI will never forget that smell. I’m alive 30 years later. ",
"I often see pro soccer players and NHLers sniffing something before the game (haha i know what you are gonna say). Is that the same stuff?",
"Realizing ammonia gasses. I'm a lifeguard and have broken a packet just to see what it was like. I couldn't get my nose within two feet of the packet before my nose began burning like hell. Had a good laugh in the guard house with that.",
"Smelling salts wake you up because the sense of smell is processed differently than other senses, via the olfactory nerve. \n\nEvery other cranial nerve is passes through the thalamus, which can be thought of as the sensory relay in the brain. The olfactory nerve goes directly to the brain. \n\nThus, if you pinch someone or yell at them those sensory inputs can be if or because the thalamus says to. The smell cannot be ignored and you are awakened. This is also why smell is so closely tired to memory. \n",
"You can sniff them to keep you awake, actually. Inbetween periods, my team will crack open a few and pass the little packets around. You take a whiff of the salts and the intensity and potency of it really opens your eyes. It's almost like a drug, without the harmful effects. ",
"I was born with anosmia (lack of sense of smell) and have always wondered if smelling salts would work on me. Do they trigger a physiological reaction separate from smell that would wake me anyway?",
"Smelling salts for staying energized is a common practice that's been around for years in the NHL. All most all teams have a giant pack of them laying around for player use in between shifts. Even NFL players like Ezekiel Elliot have started using them for the same effect. My hockey team uses them as well before games and it actually really gives you a nice boost of energy before doing various activities. Just don't get addicted and don't smell like 10 of them.",
"Side note - you can't 'smell' anything while asleep. Smelling salts work as an irritant that causes you to wake up. If your wife farts in bed and you're asleep, you would only wake up if it irritates your respiratory system or is loud enough to wake you...",
"Smelling salts release ammonia (NH3) gas, which triggers an inhalation reflex (that is, causes the muscles that control breathing to work faster) by irritating the mucous membranes of the nose and lungs. Fainting can be caused by excessive parasympathetic and vagal activity that slows the heart, and decreases perfusion of the brain. The sympathetic irritant effect is exploited to counteract these vagal parasympathetic effects and thereby reverse the faint.",
"When you go into deep sleep stages of your sleep cycle, the sections of the brain responsible for hearing, touch, vision, etc. are suppressed, making it harder for you to wake. The only center that isn't suppressed is your olfactory center, the one responsible for smell. So any smell can wake you up if it's powerful enough, but salts take less to wake you.",
"Did you see this on stranger things??",
"Were u watching stranger things when u first thought of this?",
"There was a union strike here in New York. The scab non-union guys were working underground doing work on cables. They had their trucks working putting light out and had ventilator pumps sending fresh air below. The union guys showed up and demanded the scabs get out. They said fuck off etc. They were not coming out. Union guy takes a bottle of ammonia and pour it near the ventilator fan intake. The scabs flew outta that manhole. 17 year old me learned a lot about unions & scabs that day. Scabs had a bad day.",
"Is this after watching punisher?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
67vnob
|
what's really happening inside our heads when we suddenly don't remember driving somewhere (space out), but we still made it just fine without crashing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67vnob/eli5_whats_really_happening_inside_our_heads_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgtjxyn",
"dgtk2xa",
"dgua9sh"
],
"score": [
66,
22,
8
],
"text": [
"I think there's actually a name for it, but I can't remember it.\n\nBasically, your brain is constantly working on a bunch of different stuff. Just like our outward self, we try and conserve time and energy when we can. If you have a stack of documents you need to shred, you're not going to take one sheet of paper to the shredder at a time, it would take all day. You're going to take the whole stack to the shredder to save time and energy.\n\nChances are, you take the same commute to work every day. You drive the same roads, can expect traffic in the same areas. You know which lights are particularly long, and you know you'll see the same stores, businesses, and gas stations along the way. Your brain has no need to specifically process these surroundings because you don't need them. You've done this drive enough to know what lies ahead. So basically, your brain is putting in the least amount of effort possible. You're still minding the road, you're still seeing all there is to see, but you aren't focusing on any one thing because you don't need to. \n\nTry this. Take two movies that are roughly the same length. One you've seen several times, and one you haven't seen before at all. When you watch the one you're familiar with, it'll seem much shorter, because you know what happens, you know the plot points, etc. When you watch the one you've never seen, you have to focus and put pieces together, etc. and it will seem longer. ",
"It's called dissociation. What happens is that you are so used to doing it, that your brain takes over control, using your learned motor skills (pun intended), and memory of the objects around you to do the task and allow your mind to wander off to other places. \n\nIn term of sight, anywhere up to 95% of what we see are memories of our surroundings, we aren't actually seeing most of the familiar surroundings we see, but are just remembering it. \n\nThis makes doing tasks, even very complex tasks, without really concentrating, is actually quite easy for the brain to do on it's own (remember that it controls all of your bodily functions simultaneously - it's incredibly adept at multitasking). \n\nFrom an evolutionary standpoint, this has a very beneficial effect. When you are performing a mundane task, your mind is allowed to wander, and observe the world around you. This allows you to easily pick up discontinuities, which may represent danger or a critical change of environmental conditions, which allows it to be seen early and avoided or fought, as needed. ",
"People haven't mentioned one thing.\n\nIt's only the *unremarkable* journey you forget. You arrive somewhere, have no recollection of the drive and think \"oh my god, what if something had happened? I wasn't even aware!\".\n\nThe whole point is that if something had happened you would be aware. The autopilot and lack of making new memories is precisely because you didn't need to remember."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ozbtx
|
where do i use the correct quotation marks?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ozbtx/eli5_where_do_i_use_the_correct_quotation_marks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcn797t",
"dcn8yed"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This is mostly a stylistic choice. In the United States, people typically use double quotation marks (\") while in Britain and Australia they typically use single quotation marks ('). However, you can pick your own style if you feel strongly about it. Some authors even do things like use double quotation marks for actual speech and single quotation marks for thoughts. The important thing is to be consistent and to make sure you switch to the other type of mark when putting a quotation within a quotation. If you're a high school student in the United States, though, I would stick with double quotation marks for everything except quotations inside a quotation because teachers are often used to teaching \"rules\" that aren't really rules.",
"The usual practice is the italicize titles of books, songs, movies, plays, etc; so you would say:\n\n > *Thinking Out Loud* is a song released by Ed Sheeran.\n\nIf that, for whatever reason, isn't an option, you can use quotation marks, but using the same rules as you would for direct quotes.\n\nChoose one system. The British system is traditionally single quotation marks, with the double quotation marks for use inside quotation marks:\n\n > I like 'Thinking Out Loud' by Ed Sheeran.\n\n > He said, 'I like \"Thinking Out Loud\" by Ed Sheeran.'\n\nIn the US, and increasingly elsewhere it's the reverse:\n\n > I like \"Thinking Out Loud\" by Ed Sheeran.\n\n > He said, \"I like 'Thinking Out Loud' by Ed Sheeran.\"\n\nChoose one of those two systems and stick with it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1zy3za
|
why is it that when you are under the influence of alcohol its called being drunk, but from any other substance its called being high?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zy3za/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_you_are_under_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfy0zns",
"cfy12ii",
"cfy13cq",
"cfy13t7",
"cfy1qsb",
"cfy2ahr",
"cfy2th0"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because alcohol use is socially accepted and legal. When we say \"he's high,\" it means that he's doing something illegal. It's a huge difference, hence different words.",
"There are terms for being under the influence of other specific drugs besides alcohol. Dusting for pcp, tweaking for meth, blazed for marijuana, tripping for hallucinogens, etc",
"Within cultures that do a lot of drugs there are words in use similar to drunk (stoned, tweaked, etc). It all comes down to how common something is.",
"People do call being under the influence of alcohol \"high\" sometimes. It was more common in the past.",
"I'd be very worried if an actual 5 year-old asked me this.",
"Because you 'drink' alcohol. ",
"most drugs are stimulants. the term \"high\" describes the common energetic feeling associated with them.\n\nalcohol is a depressant and causes the exact opposite effects. using the same term would be strange to say the least.\n\nit's also why drugs+alcohol are a terrible combination."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9f5qfa
|
how come companies like vw and porsche flourished after ww2 despite their clear involvement?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9f5qfa/eli5how_come_companies_like_vw_and_porsche/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5u02og",
"e5u0cif",
"e5u0mnb"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There was a lot of American investment in the West German economy after the war as part of the Marshall Plan, in order to strengthen it against the Soviet bloc. German industry was deliberately kept as intact as possible for this purpose, and heavily subsidized. \n\nIts automotive sector was formidable, and seen as a strategic asset. So its role in the war was downplayed and a forward-looking image promoted.\n\n",
"VW was actually saved by an English Major who was supposed to dismantle the factory after the war. He saw the potential and used the need for replacing/repairing military vehicles as the reason for saving the company. This was given the go ahead by army superiors as VW’s were incredibly well made vehicles and the British army needed them desperately. \n\nHugo Boss, despite being a Nazi and making the uniforms for SS and others did well after the war. This was in part due to his son in law taking over the business after his death and the company participating in a fund to compensate the slave workers used by Nazi Germany. \n\nEdit: Just like to add that despite a companies origins/actions there is always a demand for a superior product and VW and Porsche were both at the top of their fields. ",
"Essentially, (1) both companies had change of leadership after the war and (2) a well-designed car will sell.\n(1)The VW factory was taken over by the British in 1945. The factory had a new chairman named Ivan Hirst who was known as “The British Major Who Saved Volkswagen.” The same year, Ferdinand Porsche was arrested for war crimes. His son, Ferry Porsche, oversaw the company and designed the 356 while his father was gone. Ferdinand returned a couple years later but Ferry was ultimately responsible for growing Porsche beyond a family operation.\n(2) Aside from their leadership changes post-war, both Volkswagen and Porsche were known for engineering and performance. Air-cooled rear-engine, sleek bodywork and motor-racing success made these cars appealing. Porsche and Volkswagen also designed engines for other cars, like the 5-cylinder-inline diesel for Mercedes-Benz. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
66fq6g
|
how are some creatures capable of being born from an unfertilized egg while others aren't?
|
What makes certain creatures like bees and specific types of fish able to hatch from unfertilized eggs, while others like most birds and virtually all mammals are unable to do so?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66fq6g/eli5_how_are_some_creatures_capable_of_being_born/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgi6q1i"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Sir David Attenborough covers it in his BBC documentary serie \"Natural Curiosities\" \nSeason 2 | Episode 1: \"Virgin Births\" _URL_0_ \n > Davis presents parthenogenesis, asexual reproduction, notably in species which are capable of sexual breeding too. Sometimes it's the way for a population to be established by a single colonizing female, as Komodo dragons did on various smaller Insulind islands. Sometimes cloning is deemed ideal for a species perfectly adapted to its environment, albeit a gamble on the long run to give up natural variation. Often however it's combined with sexual reproduction in a complex seasonal s-cycle, as with aphids, whose females also breed pregnant offspring, so as to clone themselves fast in huge numbers. \n \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3792840/"
]
] |
|
2pxyii
|
why is customer support always so bad?
|
It seems really strange to me that not only do a few companies have terrible customer support, **most** companies do. Examples of what I mean by bad support:
* Lack of knowledge about the product(s) being supported
* Passing calls back and forth between "supervisors"
* Losing information and correspondence
* Inaccurate time estimates for on-site support
* Promising to deliver a result or refund and never following through
* Poorly-designed touch tone menus to navigate
* Annoying music (why even bother?) or ads while waiting
It seems like every day I see a post on one of my subreddits complaining about customer services whether through Comcast, Valve, Sears, you name it. Is support explicitly designed to frustrate the consumer? Maybe provided as a legal necessity but not intended to help anyone? Or are companies just *really bad* at support in general?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pxyii/eli5_why_is_customer_support_always_so_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn10s5w"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A lot of the problem boils down to the fact that customer service reps are treated like shit by everyone they interact with.\n\nCustomers only call is when they are already unhappy. Even before the menus and waiting, the customer is in a bad mood, and will take out all of their frustration on the first person that answers. A friend of mine was doing billing support for a company, and she took an hour long call where a customer constantly berated her for being a \"racist bitch\" because she couldn't refund him for something he bought. Hanging up or escalating the call to a supervisor would have lost her her job.\n\nManagement tends to hate call centers. They are a huge cost to the bottom line, customers hate them, and no better system exists to help customers. Upper management does everything in their power to make call center work suck. Shitty pay, zero tolerance policies, outdated and worthless software, constant upsells, etc...\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1zvpm1
|
why are chickens the world's go to bird for meat and eggs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zvpm1/eli5_why_are_chickens_the_worlds_go_to_bird_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfxesxx",
"cfxevyc",
"cfxftgx",
"cfxhsdv",
"cfxkvat",
"cfxo0sk",
"cfxq7tp",
"cfxugqq",
"cfxx2bt",
"cfy1ols"
],
"score": [
12,
98,
17,
2,
5,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Chickens grow fast (compared to many birds), are easy to care, they don't eat too much (compared to weight) and they lay enough eggs. ",
"A chicken is a machine for transforming grain into valuable protein.\n\n[It is an efficient machine](_URL_0_) and beats all other livestock, having a shorter time to slaughter and higher gross efficiency than turkeys or ducks.\n\nThey also eat all the bugs out of your yard and turn the pests into more protein, and don't need a pond like ducks. Chickens are soulless evil beings (trust me on this) but they are a very rational thing to have on your farm.\n\nWild chicken relatives (and a handful of breeds, especially Araucanas) have similar flight capabilities to a wild turkey, which is to say poor but still capable of roosting in a tree. We bred that out of them long ago. We made them perfect egg and meat machines.",
"Why are cows the go to source for meat and milk?",
"Small, quickly produce the necessary food for relatively little grain, and unlike geese, do not require a body of water. You can build a chicken coop on a small piece of land and use the rest for crops. Also, the fact that you get both meat and eggs from the same animal, so they produce food while maturing. For meat, unwanted males or females who have stopped laying, and for eggs, mature females.",
"There are many traits of chickens which make them an ideal food source. They are adaptable eaters and can subsist off a wide variety of food sources, and they can survive in a wide variety of climates. Their eggs are relatively large for their body size and offspring hatch able to fend for themselves - unlike pigeons, which are used for meat in many parts of the world. Chickens are an small easy-to-handle size and are ground-based, so they are easier to contain. They do not require large amounts of water, like ducks or geese. \n\nAs result of domestication, chickens come in hundreds of different breeds, many of which grow rapidly or lay profusely throughout the year. Because they have been domesticated such a long time, many of the traits we have bred into them are more pronounced than in other birds, such as quail (which are not as docile as chickens). It is probably largely a result of chance that chickens happened to be domesticated first. It is possible that other birds, such as quail or guinea fowl, just have easily could have become a reliable food source like the chicken, as they share many of the basic traits above. But Jungle-fowl, progenitor of the chicken, was probably accessible and abundant at the time. In addition, chickens have an extra trait that probably helped them become such a widespread presence - cockfighting. Though inhumane, it is thought that this was the initial reason chickens were domesticated. Although now banned in the US, cockfighting remains prevalent in most of the world and probably contributed to the spread of chickens throughout the world - and thus their domestication into our most efficient food animal. ",
"Because turtles are harder to catch",
"Duck is incredibly popular in China.\n\nFrom observing menus and markets it is probably as popular as chicken there. One could even buy duck tongues!\n\n",
"IIRC the Romans initially domesticated chickens but only used them for eggs they didn't even think about using their meat, it was many years later that people startedc to wonder wht the meat tasted like as it is i'm sure i eat way more pork than chicken in the form of sausages, bacon, gammon etc. I'd say (at least from my UK POV) that pig is the go to animal for meat.\n\nEdoit: and Duck eggs are far superior to chickens as their better for custard and taste amazing.",
"Because they're delicious. ",
"cause they're nom"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://awellfedworld.org/sites/awellfedworld.org/files/pdf/Feed-Efficiency-DEFRA-2010.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4s7jj9
|
how does hugging a bomb to one's body significantly reduce the bombs damage potential?
|
It seems like if a bomb or grenade had the power to significantly damage a large number of bodies originally, then having one of those bodies wrapped around it when it exploded wouldn't make such a big difference in the force it generated. How do the physics of this work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4s7jj9/eli5_how_does_hugging_a_bomb_to_ones_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d574m35",
"d574vee",
"d576epb",
"d579o7k",
"d57l1h9"
],
"score": [
19,
6,
3,
17,
2
],
"text": [
"It's about potential energy. Think of a pool table. Hit the cue ball down the table as hard as you can and it'll bounce back and forth a few times. \nHit the same ball as hard as you can but put another ball in front of it and your ball will slow down quick after transferring the majority of its energy into the other ball. However it takes some energy to get it going from a stand still so that ball might bounce of two cushions if your lucky but no where near as far as the first time you hit the cue ball.\n\nWrapped in technically 2 bodies, all of the concussive wave first has to go through them, liqifying their organs but having a lesser effect on the other bystanders as it has less potential energy.\nShrapnel also individually has fairly low energy so most will be stopped by their bodies. However the explosion would have disintegrated their bodies, effectively creating an organic Shrapnel but much less of it and traveling with less energy.",
"It's not the bomb itself that kills and maims a lot of people, it's the fragmentation, suicide bombers use nails, steel balls, anything that is small yet traveling at a high enough velocity acts like a bullet and is made of iron/steel, the relative kill range of a small bomb (that of a suicide bomber) is quite small, add in fragmentation this increases significantly, what he did was absorb a lot of this fragmentation into his body, slowing down the fragmentation significantly and soaking up a wide spread, yes a lot of it went through him, but it reduced the overall effectiveness, think of a shotgun shell, longer it travels the more spread it has, thus the more targets it can hit.\n\nCrazy as it may sound, there is rarely any advanced notice of a suicide bomber as it can actually cause MORE casualties with a more open street vs a dense crowd as fragmentation is able to spread out more causing more damage",
" > the power to significantly damage a large number of bodies originally\n\nIs converted into the power to monstrously obliterate one body.",
"Instead of hitting 50 people with one bit of shrapnel it hits one person with 50 bits of shrapnel. ",
"Dude ur asking this because of that news that came in like a day ago about a hero that hugged a guy and saved dozens of people. They answered the Q over there tho, lol. Anyways, the answer there was that basically, most of the bombs damage comes from little knives (shrapnel) attached to them, like nails so when it explodes, all those pieces go flying out like little bullets. Those are the ones that really hurt people. I know ur Q has been A already, but why not i guess"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2cvrot
|
why can i jog for 30-60 min nonstop on a treadmill, but i can't jog for more than 5-10 min on pavement/ trail?
|
Look past how out of shape I am, I am genuinely curious. My friend said it's because the machine helps- but I thought I was propelling the machine.... Clearly, I have no idea what is happening.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cvrot/eli5why_can_i_jog_for_3060_min_nonstop_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjjh369",
"cjjhaem",
"cjjho47",
"cjjj0yk",
"cjjq9e1"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The treadmill is flat and goes at a constant pace. You can change it to suit how fast you want to run. It is good for consistency and all that. When you are on the pavement, however, the terrain is instantly bumpy and uneven, leading to more concentration and work from your body. Plus, there are uphills and downhills, etc.",
"You generally lose more of your energy due to friction on the road, as it's not as nice a surface as a treadmill.\n\nAlso, you are actually moving through the air when you are running, losing energy to air resistance, when on a treadmill the air is pretty much still around you and don't have to move through it.\n\nAdditionally there are plenty of small altitude changes, even if you don't really notice them, as well as the obvious hills and downhills etc.\n\nAll these add up to make it significantly harder to run outside.\n\nYou can't really compare your treadmill speed to your running speed.",
"Because when you run outside you need to propel yourself forward. On a treadmill you are staying in one spot.",
"The main factor is probably that it's harder to set a consistent and steady pace when running outside, making it easier to over-exert yourself, while on a treadmill, you put it on a specific setting and it will keep you at that pace.",
"Unrelated but it's the opposite for me. Can run 60 min without getting too tired outside, feel like dying after 10 on the treadmill."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
20orwq
|
if the government can't promote or demote religion, what's up with the "god bless america" deal?
|
You know on the presidential speeches when the POTUS usually says "God Bless America" at the end of the speech. I've read that the Government can't promote or demote religion. Why is he allowed to say that phrase? Isn't that promoting a theist culture?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20orwq/eli5_if_the_government_cant_promote_or_demote/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg5bred",
"cg5c92i"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The restriction is in Congress passing laws respecting religious establishment. Saying \"God bless America\" isn't a law. ",
"Freedom of speech covers the president as much as it covers you and me. He can use his words to promote theism all he want.\n\nWhat he can't do is pass a lot that establishes a religion."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
13vsqi
|
what is the "intelligent design" theory of the universe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13vsqi/eli5_what_is_the_intelligent_design_theory_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c77lq1a",
"c77m1w8",
"c77n0t2",
"c77trhq"
],
"score": [
19,
2,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"The idea is that the universe is so unbelievably complex that there is no way it came about via random chance or simple principles. So, there must be an intelligent being (God) that designed everything.\n\nIn short: \"I don't understand, therefore God.\"",
"thank you all for the answers, very satisfied. just making sure i understand, divine command theory is solely involved with a God, whereas intelligent design is simply saying that it could be anything?",
"Imagine someone was to tell you that everything that was not obvious worked by magic. That's fun right? Well ok, but it's not real. And it doesn't help you understand anything. It answers everything, but explains nothing, and we can see it is always wrong when real explanations are available.\n\nWell that's what \"intelligent design\" is. People who advocate for this idea, simply substitute the word magic with \"intelligent agent\". When pressed for how this is an explanation, they will say something equivalent to \"the intelligent agent has the intelligence required to enact the magic to make that otherwise unexplained thing work\". (Magic works because it's magical!)\n\nAnd that's it! This is not just an ELI5 simplified explanation for \"Intelligent Design\", this is a thorough and complete explanation.\n\nSo the Intelligent Design \"theory\" of the universe (or of anything else) is that an \"Intelligent Agency\" made it happen. That is all. This is not an approximate or simplified answer, this is the complete answer.\n\nUp until this point is the ELI5 explanation, and if you've understood it, then you understand the substance of intelligent design completely and totally. Understanding what intelligent design is does not require any skill beyond that of a 5 year old.\n\n -------- End of ELI5 Explanation ---------\n\nNow there is a subtle difference between the ELI5 version of intelligent design and the grown up definition. The difference is that an advocate of this idea will often dress up their explanations by saying the following:\n\n The unexplained thing (doesn't matter what it is) has complexity (this is never \n CORRECTLY quantified) that can only have come about by an intelligent agency \n (which is never defined or characterized in any way). \n\nThe logic behind this reasoning is never substantiated or explained, this is just used as a cut-and-paste line that is inserted in their claims. The parenthetical remarks are not just cheap shots -- they are *essential* to the exposition. The purpose of the intelligent design advocate is to be as obfuscated and intractable as possible. And this \"talking point\" is at the crux of their exposition.\n\nOne argument advocates make is about DNA and how improbable any given sequence is. Thus its unexplained complexity (which, instead of asking for an explanation is given ~~magic~~ an intelligent agency). However, there is never any discussion of dependence, distribution or bias in the nucleotides. Hence the invalidity of their complexity measure. (The advocate is assuming the reader is unskilled in both mathematics and biology.)\n\nIf you understood this explanation you are as much a master of this theory as the most prestigious scholar who advocates this theory.\n",
"Intelligent design is perhaps the ‘new creationism’. It attempts to show creationism as being true using some semblance of an intellectual argument, rather than just ‘because the Bible says so’.\n\nIts major argument, championed and pioneered by Michael Behe is ‘The argument from irreducible complexity’, which while being thorough discredited does provide some interesting things to think about as we understand *why* it is wrong. \n\nThe argument from irreducible complexity is basically this:\n\nSome things in nature would cease to function if one component were removed. Therefore, all of the components must have begun to exist simultaneously. Therefore, they were designed intelligently and brought into existence all at once.\n\nThe I.D. proponent will then cite examples of irreducibly complex systems in nature, such as the human eye, the woodpecking mechanism of the woodpecker, or the venus fly trap's fly trap.\n\nThis seems like an interesting argument, and the truth is, compared with other creationist arguments, it is: it reveals genuinely interesting puzzles to biologists. \n\nHere's the thing though:\n\nAlmost every irreducibly complex system proposed by intelligent design proponents has either been shown to be either not irreducibly complex (that is, the *would* still function quite well without one or more of their components), or that they could have evolved anyway.\n\nSometimes, the creationists respond to the first objection by saying that the irreducibly complex (IC) system with a part taken away is now truly IC. This is just moving the goalposts. ‘This system is IC’, ‘What if you take away this part? It still works’, ‘Ah, then what is left over must be IC’. And the process can of course be repeated with the new IC system.\n\nThe second objection is more of a puzzle for the scientist rather than the creationist. The explanation that shows how IC systems can evolve anyway must be plausible, and ideally with actual evidence. One of the key things to remember though is that evolution does not just add things to an organism — it can take things away, and even repurpose things. An IC system can evolve by an *overly* complex system evolving and then being streamlined — for instance, perhaps an organism has two parts that serve the same purpose. One of those parts could evolve away, maybe leaving an IC system. Alternatively, a part meant for one thing could evolve into something else. An example of this is the wings of an insect. Creationists often ask ‘what use is half a wing?’. In insects, the answer seems to be ‘a sense organ’ — the evidence seems to show that before insects could fly, they had two bits of sensory kit coming out of their backs which were then re-purposed into wings.\n\nEven if the scientist cannot come up with a good explanation, since evolution has so much evidence, all this would seem to show is that we currently don't know — that natural selection is cleverer than us, if you like. Intelligent design pretends to be science, but really it is just bad philosophy — it doesn't propose its own theories, or empirically disprove existing theories. It just looks at organisms and says ‘that's too intricate to have evolved. It must be god’."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
403zgo
|
why do most people buy premium cellphones on equipment installment plans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/403zgo/eli5_why_do_most_people_buy_premium_cellphones_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyrakvh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Its about image, it has nothing to do with specs. People want the newest and the best, and are willing to drop $15-20 a month for it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1zpsqy
|
on an electrical outlet, what is the point of a ground wire?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zpsqy/eli5_on_an_electrical_outlet_what_is_the_point_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfvt0c9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's there for safety.\n\nIt's usually connected to the metal case of an appliance. Without it, if a short circuit occurred inside the appliance, the metal case would be live, and might electrocute someone who touched it.\n\nWith a ground wire connected, if a short circuit occurs, the ground wire causes the circuit to become grounded - current will flow through the ground wire to the ground, which ought to be enough to blow the fuse and prevent electrocution."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4poyl4
|
why is it so hard to pirate videos, games etc? why can't pirates just exactly copy the files from the disc and put it on anouter one?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4poyl4/eli5why_is_it_so_hard_to_pirate_videos_games_etc/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4mpbpq",
"d4mpc6t",
"d4mpkvs",
"d4mqsww",
"d4ms7h2",
"d4mvggb",
"d4myxjq",
"d4n161e",
"d4n1r3q",
"d4n4u77"
],
"score": [
22,
8,
5,
3,
6,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The short answer is DRM. Digital Rights Management.\n\nThese days the disc is pretty much just an install-to-harddrive thing; the only thing you need the disc in for is to launch it. But then you've also got DRM communicating between the console and servers; they can constantly check if your game is legit each time you log on to the servers (or if anyone else is already logged in using your product key, they can detect from that, that one of you is using an illegal copy).",
"Because the disk and files are designed to resist this process and the machine is designed to recognize copies. You have to ensure that the disc actually gives all the files, none of them have been changed during copy, that it has all the necessary requirements to fool the device that it's going to, and none of those things are easy. The disks themselves are usually encrypted, the system files are also hidden away so to know how to fool them you first need to get past that security. It's a real undertaking to break a code enough to allow an unmodified system to take illegitimate copies.",
"Generally, DRM ties downloadable games and content to an account which makes it hard / almost impossible to pirate. With physical copies, different types of disks (such as a dual layer) may be used and so pirates would have to buy extra hardware - something that many can't be bothered to do. \nCopy protection may also be used. In Blu-Rays, a ROM Mark is a method of protection. This can not be copied by consumer hardware which prevents ripping the disk. \nFinally, consoles have software and hardware solutions to prevent piracy.",
"Commercial disk burners work differently to personal ones, I've been told, and there are physically different sectors on them which can't be reproduced, like the burnable surface of a commercial disk is different or has more area. ",
"Okay, so far none of the responses really answer the question as I understood it. Let's say I buy a game, and it comes on a DVD. That DVD is a piece of plastic with a series of pits engraved on the shiny side in a way that encodes 4.7-ish million bits of data. My computer has a laser that can read all of those bits. It can also burn bits of data to a blank DVD. If I read every bit on the original copy, store it in memory, then burn that same sequence of bits to another disk, that disk should be indistinguishable from the first one. I only see two possible ways around that:\n\n1. Somehow some data on the disk is inaccessible when you try to copy it, but is accessible to software that checks for DRM. This seems implausible. Copying encrypted data is still just copying data.\n\n2. The disks have unique identifying info that is phoned in back to home when the disk's contents are first accessed. Then when subsequent identical copies of the disk are accessed, it phones that same info in and gets back a message that says \"hey, you're a copy, we've already seen you before and you're not allowed to do your thing anymore\". This fits my intuition for how DRM works, but still seems a bit strange in that it shouldn't be too hard to disrupt, and if you could copy the disk without triggering the initial call to home then the copy could be the \"real\" one and the real disk would be detected as counterfeit...\n\nCan someone clarify?",
"Because console manufacturer's spend a lot of money developing technology that specifically disallows this. If it was that easy to copy games consoles would probably just stop being made entirely since most of their profit is from software.\n\nEach company and console has different ways of doing this but it generally just includes making discs in very unique ways that most consumer hardware cannot replicate. They also have a lot of checks done within the operating system and on the hardware so that if it notices that something is different, it won't run. And all this is very difficult to modify making it hard to disable and still have a working system.\n\nSo, a hacked or modded system is one that has had its protections altered or disabled, allowing the hardware to run game copies that don't have those specific, unique markers which indicate a legit game.",
"Consoles like the XBox have extra information written to non-standard areas of the disks. This information is used to verify the legitimacy of a copy of a disk, and is not easily copied by any DVD burner onto any DVD.\n\nYou *can* copy the games by making a perfect image, but it requires specific brands of DVD-R's which can support the extra data, and specific brands of DVD burners which can write the extra data to the special areas of the disk, and you need special DVD rippin/burning software that knows how to read/write the extra areas of the disk.",
"Videos and Movies work exactly like that, the tricky part is getting them before everyone else does, whether its by sneaking a camera into an early showing or by being in a position where you have a copy and can leak it. \n\nGames are more difficult. Id say 85% of games come with one of many types of security that fall under the general umbrella of DRM, or Digital Rights Management. What this means is that in one way or another, the publisher has a means of ensuring the product is genuine, whether by asking for a unique key code or requiring an internet connection to ensure their arent duplicate products out there. So the difficulty here arises in creating an algorithm that generates a valid product key, or by creating a \"crack\" that works around the online verification in some way. \n",
"Games have DRM which needs to be bypassed. Not sure how or why you think pirating movies is hard... Probably the easiest thing you can do illegally online (tied with music pirating)",
"Just another point: in the 80s, quite a few games came with a lot of fancy artwork, 100+ page manuals, etc. And, at various points, they asked you \"what is word 3 on page 17 of manual 4\"? So, then people copied floppies, AND photocopied entire 100+ page manuals to avoid paying $30-40 per game. Try getting a hold of an old Wing Commander manual \"As it is in heaven\". A thing of beauty. \n\nLike some others here, I was a pirate early on when I was a teenager and couldn't afford everything. I was often tying up my family's analog phone for hours downloading the latest game. Back then, I was HAPPY with my 300/1200/2400 baud modem. 300 baud is approximately 0.00003 Mbits (give or take). \n\nBut yeah, the simple answer is: consumer DVD-writers can't write disks exactly the way they come from the factory, in general. Heck, back in the 80s, there was a \"attach a piece of tape to your floppy, yank hard at the right time, and if you time it just right, you'll get a bad sector and that will make this game work\" trick. Never worked for me. Back then, some people bought special, 2 to 3x the cost, floppy disk drives (eg. Indus GT for the Atari) that allowed you to write bad sectors. For most of us, the $200-300 cost of the floppy itself (a HUGE upgrade from cassette tapes!) was expensive enough that we couldn't afford more.. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
52a66w
|
why are horses used for crowd control?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52a66w/eli5_why_are_horses_used_for_crowd_control/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7ijp3j",
"d7ijrug",
"d7ijze1",
"d7imb1w",
"d7imou8",
"d7iteme"
],
"score": [
42,
9,
32,
12,
8,
5
],
"text": [
"They are intimidating. They are also more mobile than a vehicle in small spaces, and still faster than anyone on foot.",
"I'm not an expert but I'd say because who would fuck with a horse? They kick or stomp you you will get serious injuries or dead, so it's probably just an intimidation thing.",
"From what I have heard the mounted police is used for crowd control because horses are very intimidating but still can be trained to stay calm so that the police man is in the position to control the situation, also the make for great mobile viewpoints as you are quite a bit taller on a horse than just standing upright, look [here](_URL_0_).",
"Intimidation and mobility is correct but it also places a cop above the crowd so that he/she can see more also be seen by more people. Everyone slows down from speeding if you see a cop, if you always see a cop you speed much less kinda idea.\n\nAlso having worked in a PD people fucking love horses and don't see them much in a city so it's easy to get funding for horse units and raise money under that banner.\n\nThere's more but those are the top 4: mobility, exposure, intimidation, and money.",
"they're big. \n\nthey're tall.\n\nthe officer is up high where he has good view.\n\npolitics for a horse are much better than politics for an APC",
"All the points about intimidation, size, improved vision are all correct. Also, people tend to move when 1300 lbs of horse charges you.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/E5nCcbE"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/jz0Z5_h_CtY?t=171",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccvwGYO1KwU"
]
] |
||
8c1l94
|
if i want to build a gaming pc from scratch, how would i go around doing that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8c1l94/eli5_if_i_want_to_build_a_gaming_pc_from_scratch/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxbc4ke"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This isn't the sub for straightforward answers like this. You'll want to go to r/buildapc, r/pcmasterrace, or r/buildapcforme."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1lh2kb
|
how is imprisonment for contempt of court not unconsitutional?
|
Regardless of the situation I can call a policeman, a Congressman or the President of the United States a disrespectful name without consequence due to the First Amendment. If I do the same to a judge he can throw me in jail for contempt of court. Why is this not unconstitutional?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lh2kb/eli5_how_is_imprisonment_for_contempt_of_court/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbz5ft7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is a greater interest in protecting the due process of law than protecting the right of freedom of expression within the context of the courtroom. You are free to curse at the judge when doing so doesn't interfere with court proceedings, such as outside the courtroom or during a recess."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ys0q9
|
why are sites like metacafe and dailymotion still around with youtube and vimeo around?
|
I can't tell you the last time I have ever used Metacafe or Dailymotion. Does ANYBODY still use them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ys0q9/eli5_why_are_sites_like_metacafe_and_dailymotion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfnacy6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Speaking from what I've personally seen, Youtube succumbs to copyright pressures much more easily. If there's videos you're looking for in Youtube and you cannot find, Dailymotion probably still has it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2idik6
|
how can diners and restaurants leave out the milk and cream packets for your coffee unrefrigerated without them going bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2idik6/eli5_how_can_diners_and_restaurants_leave_out_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl16568",
"cl16f5r"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"As long as something doesn't have bacteria in it to begin with and is free from an oxygen atmosphere is can last a decent amount of time without refrigeration.\n\nIt's likely that the cream packets have a pure nitrogen atmosphere inside and that the cream is pasteurized.",
"The milk and cream are 'long life'. They are exposed to high temperatures for a short time to kill any bacteria, then sealed in an atmosphere with no oxygen in it. They don't require refrigeration until they are opened and exposed to oxygen and the bacteria in the air."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
bisbqi
|
how does a meritocracy work and what are the pros and cons of it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bisbqi/eli5_how_does_a_meritocracy_work_and_what_are_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"em2pz3a",
"em325ae",
"em3gf3k"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"You haven't provided a clear definition of what you are calling a meritocracy so any answer is gonna be kinda vague. All that word means is that those with merit rise. It doesn't describe any form of social structure or measure of WHAT merit is... You could describe corporations (theoretically, not necessarily realistically) as meritocracies. Also capitalism or anarchy. But also cronyism, mob rule, feudalism (if \"merit\" is who can organise the best army and win the right wars). So any definition needs to describe what merit means and what the rewards are.\n\nThe benefits are that, theoretically, the best man is always in the best position possible. So you have capable leaders and qualified workers in positions that give them the most leverage to benefit society.\n\nThe cons would include difficulty keeping the system honest. Corruption, and nepotism, etc would eventually happen. There needs to be something to counter balance that.",
"Meritocracy is the idea that your advancement/success in life is defined by your accomplishments - the best people get the promotions and the raises. \n\nThe pros are that the people who have earned success get rewarded for it. Work hard, spend time growing your skills, be persistent, and it'll pay off.\n\nThe cons are that it's a pipe dream. There's no way for us to truly and effectively evaluate people purely on merit, we inherently bias our decisions towards our preconceived world views, and if I had to choose to hire someone between a candidate whose resume looked perfect but I'd never met or a guy who I knew was 90% of what I wanted because I'd worked with him before, I'd hire the guy I knew every time because I have far less risk in hiring him.",
"Everyone has mentioned what a meritocracy *literally* is - a system where the \"most qualified\" get promoted to leadership positions. What everyone has been leaving out is that the term was originally coined to satirize English society/government/business.\n\nIn systems that claim to be a meritocracy, the people in power will define \"merit\" to reflect the things they see as important about themselves. The upper classes will see certain modes of speech, types of manners, having gone to the right schools and so on as signs of \"merit\" when they're really just a reflection of what social class somebody was born into. This means that they get promoted, ensure their children have the same upbringing & further the system that put them into power in the first place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
eq0604
|
artificial rain is used many times at a lower scale but why is it not used at a wider scale to combate pollution and wildfires
|
For almost a month and half New Delhi was facing a huge air pollution problem. This spiked mostly after _URL_0_ was so severe that schools had to be shut down. The Delhi govt was spending huge amount of money and resources to tackle it. Why didn't they used artificial rain to precipitate the pollution particles.
Secondly why is artificial rain not used to stop wild fire .
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eq0604/eli5_artificial_rain_is_used_many_times_at_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"femqu2v",
"fen6bkv"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text": [
"Depends what you mean by artificial rain. If you mean cloud seeding to make it rain where you want it to that only works if the rain clouds already there. If the sky is clear or the wrong type of clouds then it doesnt work. So without looking into New Delhi weather if it's been clear skys or no suitable clouds they cant make it rain with cloud seeding. It's the same for wildfires like in Australia, there are no suitable clouds in the sky to make it rain from",
"What do you mean by \"artificial rain\"? I have never really heard the term outside of movie making where what they have is a water system spraying water to make it look like it is raining. \n\nIf you are talking about cloud seeding, then that is not really artificial rain. The clouds are already there and you are just adding a material that forces them to nucleate and reach heavier weights faster thus fall faster than would normally happen. But the rain clouds have to already be there. You cannot trigger things on their own without the clouds. So if the area does not have rain clouds such as Australia or India during much of the year you cannot use cloud seeding to rain."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"Diwali.It"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8u2ld5
|
-the mechanism by which, as we currently understand it, ketamine produces such remarkable antidepressant effects?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8u2ld5/eli5the_mechanism_by_which_as_we_currently/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1c3lvf",
"e1c6x2t",
"e1c77y3",
"e1cpvm2",
"e1cvney",
"e1d5md8"
],
"score": [
7,
100,
8,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"One of the effects of Ketamine is very similar to SSRIs (a widely used type of antidepressant).\n\nA specific type of protein gets bunched up/stuck in a way that decreases its availability and effectiveness, in \"lipid rafts\". SSRIs are known to free those proteins from that state, making them more available for use. \n\nKetamine has the exact same effect on the same proteins in the same state, but it works faster/better than SSRIs.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\nI do not know if that's the only effect of either medication. I do not believe it is. However, it's *one* function of antidepressants, and ketamine does the exact same thing (better)",
"We don't know. If we knew the mechanism, we wouldn't need to screw around with ketamine, we could just find or produce a molecule with similar properties. \n\nKetamine is a compound in a class called NMDA receptor antagonists - it blocks the activity of a complex protein called an NMDA receptor. These receptors allow electrical activity to pass between the brain and the spinal cord. \n\nThe effect of NMDA receptor antagonists is, in general, anesthetic. Ketamine produces what is known as \"dissociative anesthesia\". This means that in addition to reducing or eliminating the sensation of pain, it also \"dissociates\" the patient from their environment - the patient no longer feels connected to the world around them. \n\nSpeculation has it that this dissociative effect gives the brain a chance to unwind itself when depression sets in. Depression tends to be a self-reinforcing condition. The more depressed you are, the more depressed you are likely to be in the future. Because Ketamine disconnects the cognitive areas of the mind from the rest of the brain, it may short circuit this cycle.\n\nBut, again, we simply don't know for sure. Ketamine and other hallucinogens have been historically difficult to conduct research on, owing to the stigma associated with them. Early research indicates that Ketamine could be a very powerful antidepressant. More importantly, it seems to cut short a patient's suicidal thoughts. Plus it has a very rapid effect onset - SSRIs take weeks to get to therapeutic levels. So research is probably going to pick up. \n\n",
"Ketamine is an \"NMDA antagonist\". The NMDA receptor is a type of signal receiver on nerve cells. When the receptor is open, the neuron can receive certain signals from other neurons. When the receptor is closed, it cannot. NMDA antagonists, like ketamine, force the receptor to remain closed.\n\nWhat does this have to do with depression? We have no idea. We don't know how any anti-depressants actually cure depression. SSRIs, SNRIs, tricyclics, etc., they're all a mystery. We know *that* they work, to some degree or another, but not why.\n\nBrain science is still very much in its infancy. Most of the brain's workings are still a mystery to us - it's only in the last 5 years that we've discovered why we need to sleep! So at the moment, knowing *that* a drug has a certain effect on the brain is the best we can do. Maybe in another 20 years we'll understand the *why*.",
"When Ketamine is used for anaesthesia, is the patient out cold or are they still aware of what’s going on around them? Also, is there a big difference between a recreational dose and an anaesthetic dose? And finally, would a patient experience the K hole in its medical use?",
"I’m bipolar and have BPD. I had a collapsed lung being a skinny white guy; apparently that’s common. They put me under with Ketamine to insert a chest tube to suck out the air in my chest cavity. After that, I’ve been unable to tell the difference between dreams and reality. I know that sounds weird, but yeah, it sucks. Especially when you wake up terrified of a spaghetti monster only to realize it wasn’t real, even though it definitely feels that way. I never had this happen before this point. Even if it was a nightmare, I knew once I woke up that it was fake. I guess it’s the same way now, in a way, but there is certainly some other barrier that’s been broken down. I don’t blame it in so much as wish my first experience hadn’t been medical. Might’ve changed some things, but it felt like I was stuck in my mind for an entire week. I was only out for 2 1/2 hours.",
"I am a neurophysiologist in surgery, not an anesthesia provider, but 12 years experience in the operating room running potentials on the nervous system. Ketamine is something I study because it is the only drug ever in the history of medicine that increases nervous system potentials. I have given lectures to my peers on Ketamine, and I know enough about it to say I have no idea how to describe it. If you are in the medical field with knowledge of neurophysiology and anesthesia, look for Todd Sloan, MD in your journals database: if your are just curious but not that curious... my answer is “ketamine is one hell of an anesthesia agent that is used in combination with several other anesthesia agents that gives neurophysiologist very good readings on evoked potentials in surgery”. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322233.php"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a9whq0
|
if there's no oxygen to combust in space, would a nuclear bomb be as powerful and if so, why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9whq0/eli5_if_theres_no_oxygen_to_combust_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecn1xdt",
"ecn21bt",
"ecn27n7"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Since there is no air, the bomb's effects will be minimized. The bomb will be just as powerful, but without air, there is no shock wave and no wall of flames incinerating everything. There is still a ton of radiation and if you were close it would still cook you. Radiation will drop off quickly over any significant distance. Remember that people used to watch nuclear tests from Las Vegas. ",
"A nuclear bomb does not rely on oxygen or combustion at all.\n\nHowever, it's less powerful in space for a completely different reason: without any air to compress, the shock wave from the explosion disperses less violently.",
"Yes and no.\n\nIt will create as much energy, because it's not a chemical explosion, it's a nuclear one. The energy come from the nuclear bonds that keep an atom together and not the combustion with oxygen like a conventional chemical explosive.\n\nBut at the same time, the effect of a nuclear bomb in space would be more limited. The reason is that an atmosphere would absorb a lot of the thermal energy of a nuclear explosion, transforming it a pressure wave that would destroy everything in a certain radius. But in space there is no atmosphere, so the energy stay in the form of thermal radiation, which is still powerful, but spread out more and become less deadly. So basically things would survive closer to an nuclear explosion in space, than on earth. Even if the amount of energy created by that bomb would be very similar. A nuclear bomb also create radition that interact with the Earth magnetic field to create an EMP, which damage electronics equipement and in space that wouldn't happen either.\n\nThat said, with no atmosphere to absorb radiation, in space those would be deadly at longer distance. But again, would won't have nuclear fallout that keep the region unhabitable for some period of time after.\n\nSo in the end. On earth or in space, both explosion would be of similar power. But in space, it would be less destructive to structure, but more deadly to human. But in space, the radiation would be temporary, while on earth it would stick around for longer.\n\nBoth are pretty bad, just in different ways."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3t46r6
|
why are the sirens of emergency vehicles in the usa so vastly different than those in europe?
|
Weeeeeeee wooooooooo weeeeeeee woooooooo vs. wee-oo-wee-oo-wee-oo?!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t46r6/eli5_why_are_the_sirens_of_emergency_vehicles_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx2yd7d",
"cx2ypwv"
],
"score": [
7,
11
],
"text": [
"Every country chose their own emergency standards and set their own laws. Why would they be the same? They are not even the same across all of Europe. For example France is different from the UK. ",
"Cars have accents. Didn't you see the movies?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3p9v3g
|
why buildings with flat rooftops often have rocks or gravel on them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p9v3g/eli5_why_buildings_with_flat_rooftops_often_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw4ewao"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Gravel is there to protect the underlying waterproof membrane from UV which would shorten its life. It also helps deter animals from gnawing through - not the loose stuff, but the bits that have got stuck in the tar.\n\nRocks - less sure. Perhaps their thermal mass helps reduce stress on the roofing material below."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5she3a
|
what does a runny nose actually do for recovery, like from a flu?
|
Or cold
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5she3a/eli5_what_does_a_runny_nose_actually_do_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddf28yp",
"ddf2mz3"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It prevents additional viruses from entering. As the immune system is busy handling one virus it leaves the body open to attack from another virus. To prevent this there are several other defense mechanisms that turn on like increased mucus production, lack of hunger and tiredness. The flu virus and influenza virus does take advantage of this as it spreads though mucus that gets airborne after you cough. So it will also stimulate mucus production.",
"It's like lining the floor with towels and buckets when your roof springs a leak. Mucus catches the stuff coming into our bodies from the surrounding air, so a runny nose is like dumping the bucket or wringing the towels so that the floor doesn't get damaged while you fix the roof."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ajbndh
|
why adults change their voice talking to children?
|
I quite often see that adults do that. It could be a mother or just a friend of parents.
What the reason and purpose of such behavior? Is it better to children for some reason?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ajbndh/eli5_why_adults_change_their_voice_talking_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eeu60bq",
"eeu66hf",
"eeug5l0",
"eeujsfg"
],
"score": [
15,
7,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I “think” it’s simply to be less intimidating. We are big and scary to kids. Especially kids that don’t know us really well. I’ve noticed people do it a lot more to my son when it’s people that don’t see him often. The softer higher pitched voice is closer to that of other children and makes him more comfortable.",
"It's actually called \"Motherese\". It's a more soothing tone for the baby/child. Babies don't actually understand what we're saying, they take meaning from your facials and tone of your voice :)",
"As a male with a pretty deep voice, if I do not pitch it up a bit, small children can get really scared xD\n\nAs such, to actually be the cool dude I obviously am, I lighten it up a bit so I sound more like them = > Guaranteed fun",
"Babyspeak, it's believed to help babies be able to learn language. The changes in pitch and the repetition of sounds is universal in all human languages when speaking to babies. I wonder if children speak is a variant of this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
crz9fg
|
what is kinesio tape, what is it used for and what does it do?
|
Title.
I heard it doesnt really help
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/crz9fg/eli5_what_is_kinesio_tape_what_is_it_used_for_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"exb8580",
"exe7s4e"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It helps preventing over extension on joints and muscles that have had previous trauma. It's not a exosuit though and you can still get hurt.",
"\"In conclusion, temporary Kinesiology Taping positively affects stationary balance in stroke patients. However, its effects on kinetic balance were not verified.\"\n\nBae YH, Kim HG, Min KS, Lee SM. Effects of Lower-Leg Kinesiology Taping on Balance Ability in Stroke Patients with Foot Drop. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:125629."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
278v06
|
is evolutionary psychology bullshit, or is it real science?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/278v06/eli5is_evolutionary_psychology_bullshit_or_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chyi9h7",
"chyiliq",
"chyir6p",
"chykxc6",
"chyn9so",
"chz4alb"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
68,
22,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I, too, would like to see a detailed response here. My ex used to criticise the shit out of it because you couldn't perform experiments that would disprove it. I found that hard to disagree with. I think it's more of a conceptual framework than a testable hypothesis, although you can certainly make convincing arguments. I prefer to use the theory to inform my understanding of other studies, or to determine future research questions in other related more tangible areas. Some boneheads gave me a B.S. in Biopsychology and I'm not sure how indoctrinated my views on the subject are, though, mainly because I haven't gone out of my way to see a detailed criticism of the field.",
"I had to take an Evolutionary Psychology course to get my Psych degree. I had the course with Gordon Gallup at the State University of NY in Albany. This guy was the one who invented the red dot mirror test for self awareness in other animals. You could imagine how excited I was to take a course with someone that well known in Psychology. Well, that course, and all of its contents were garbage. There were some great ideas that were completely untestable as they relied on looking at ourselves Psychologically in the past with no evidence. This kind of backdrop lends itself to a lot of crazy theories. The one that made me walk out of his class for fear of screaming was his 'solution' to keeping men from 'becoming' gay. Prostitution should be legal for all boys starting at the age of puberty, then there would be no gay men, or a drastic reduction. I'm not even gay and I was so offended by that lecture I had to struggle with myself every other day to set foot in his lecture and take notes. The course was BS extreme and my opinion of a pioneer in Psychology was ruined. I am sorry if I did not explain it like you are 5, but I had to chime in on this one.\n\n-Edit- I would have to say it squarely falls into the bullshit category, with some 'interesting' points brought up",
"In theory, it's perfectly reasonable. But in practice it's often pretty badly done. People tend to draw conclusions based on a survey of some western college students and their own preconceptions, then make up some elaborate untestable speculation about it. So...it depends, mostly it depends on how rigorous the research is and whether people generalize their conclusions too far. \n\nI think the important thing to remember is that just because you can make a plausible sounding story about something, doesn't mean that story is true. And also that you can't just survey modern western people and be sure that what they do is relevant to humanity as a whole across the broad sweep of time. And finally, humans are really freaking complicated, so understanding their behavior is difficult. Don't put too much faith in EP pronouncements that neglect to consider all these things.\n\nSource: working on PhD in animal behavior, though not related to humans in any way.",
"It's real science with testable hypotheses. \n\nIt's simply the application of evolutionary theory to psychological mechanisms. Psychological mechanisms have a neural basis which is subject to evolution. It is the psychological *mechanism*, not necessarily specific behaviours themselves.\n\nPeople tend to think that evolutionary psychologists observe a behaviour and then just make up an explanation they like, pat themselves on the back, and call it science. That's not what happens in evolutionary psychology; it's just the start. Creating ideas *is* how scientific explanations start. *Then* they critically examine the ideas to see if they fit the data. \"But that's after-the-fact!\". Yes, it is. *Then* they see if those explanations *predict* future observations. This is creating testable hypotheses.\n\n\"But how can they test if these psychological mechanisms *evolved for* these reasons?\" The same way you test other traits such as antlers, fur, body mass and composition: you test if variations affect fitness.\n\nPsychological mechanisms, like all traits, can fall into 3 general categories (According to the school of adaptationism)\n\n1) Adaptations: These traits/mechanisms evolved because *on the whole and on average* they *previously* were beneficial for survival and currently still perform that function ~~E.g. craving fat and salty diets.~~(Edit: Poor example) E.g. Selecting a healthy mate.\n\n2) Exaptations: These traits/mechanisms are *now beneficial applications of traits previously adapted for another use*. E.g. Navigation and tool use would have been adaptations that were exapted to driving a car when cars were first available. \n\n3) Spandrels: These are traits/mechanisms that are neutral or even bad for fitness, but they exist because they are linked to adaptations, usually genetically. Mechanisms that sometimes result in mental illness may sometime fall into this category: they are the result of an *imperfect* system that has been molded through selection pressures to be good enough most of the time. We didn't evolve for drug addiction; drug addiction is a spandrel of our reward system that works pretty good for natural rewards. \n\nHere is a nice introductory article (paywall): _URL_0_",
"Depends on what you mean by evolutionary psychology. Psychology that incorporates evolution? Perfectly good science(Steven Pinker comes to mind). And then you have that often racist/sexist/homophobic supporting popscience that is not only unprovable but just logically unsound. I, as a student want to learn about human beings in a scientific way, and as a fan of old Charles I want to include element of biology. So in conclusion, the problem doesn't seem to be psychology, but the 'scientific' press. ",
"It's bullshit.\n\nEpigenetics explains how our genes actually change in a single generation due to environmental factors. Look at the number of studies looking at how the internet is affecting our brains (not the ridiculous tabloid claims, but the effects on long-term memory, how synapses work, etc) - our brains can rewire and change in a single generation. Shit, a single traumatic incident can change most of your psychology and brain chemistry. Learning a particular thing or particular habits affect your brain and how it works. To claim that evolutionary psychology can actually maintain a grasp on your behaviour today is to 1) ignore 13,000 years of human civilisation and societal change, 2) the way the brain works, 3) all epigenetics, and 4) focus on entirely flawed premises while desperately trying to justify something.\n\nReally, it's crap. Think about any statement with a hypothesis/proof in evo psych and it'll take all of 5 mins to realise it's crap. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879701"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
5uf0k6
|
when surgeons operate on a patient's chest, how do they make the ribcage not get in the way?
|
edit: but wouldn't spreading the ribs apart break them off? o_o
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uf0k6/eli5when_surgeons_operate_on_a_patients_chest_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddtgq1x",
"ddtgshl"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"They cut them open, often with something that looks very similar to limb clippers. They then spread the ribcage out of the way. ",
"The make the ribcage not get in the way by cutting the sternum and spreading the ribs apart with metal tools designed for the task. They can also push individual ribs apart vertically."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2rh5bs
|
now that gas is at a record low, why are politicians still pushing for the keystone pipeline?
|
My friend posted an article that she wrote about how the new republicans are going to be pushing for this at the start of 2015. Will it still be profitable to those who have their hand in the cookie jar?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rh5bs/eli5_now_that_gas_is_at_a_record_low_why_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnftif1",
"cnftn6t",
"cnfx1yo"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gas is temporarily low, it can and will go back up at any time. ",
"because they have to make their money. keystone oil was never meant for the us market and why it was pushed to go to houston to be exported in the free trade region. which means no taxes. \n",
"Because OPEC is trying to kill US fracking and by doing so, increase their hold on US energy markets. The keystone pipeline is basically a fuck you to them"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2rhlmc
|
how can countries like germany afford to make a college education free while some universities in the us charge $50k+ a year for tuition?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rhlmc/eli5_how_can_countries_like_germany_afford_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnfxzqe",
"cnfxzqp",
"cnfy89f",
"cnfy9b2",
"cnfzlic",
"cng1p35",
"cng1t0n",
"cng20cb",
"cng313z",
"cng3379",
"cng5awu",
"cng5fgt",
"cng5hqh",
"cng5l0j",
"cng5mcm",
"cng5vrx",
"cng5wdw",
"cng5wgt",
"cng603x",
"cng6078",
"cng63rs",
"cng65bt",
"cng695y",
"cng6dzt",
"cng6g1u",
"cng6h8x",
"cng6kvj",
"cng6kxu",
"cng6lol",
"cng6lpj",
"cng6ncf",
"cng6rd5",
"cng6wwu",
"cng709k",
"cng717n",
"cng76rz",
"cng799s",
"cng7efy",
"cng7egy",
"cng7ky8",
"cng7y34",
"cng7z6j",
"cng8acb",
"cng8ro3",
"cng8ub8",
"cng8xjm",
"cng92ch",
"cng92f3",
"cng981p",
"cng99ga",
"cng9a5h",
"cng9aa3",
"cng9dsh",
"cng9gep",
"cng9gqh",
"cng9osz",
"cng9ri3",
"cng9ubc",
"cng9uix",
"cng9uls",
"cng9v1y",
"cng9woj",
"cnga3ro",
"cnga4nf",
"cnga6do",
"cngaauw",
"cngat5t",
"cngatwz",
"cngblpa",
"cngbth4",
"cngbvur",
"cngc4yp",
"cngc8mp",
"cngc99m",
"cngccgf",
"cngcd58",
"cngcewx",
"cngciox",
"cngck53",
"cngcqkl",
"cngct1l",
"cngcwuf",
"cngcxgf",
"cngcxn9",
"cngd0vb",
"cngd8ws",
"cngdcuu",
"cngdhg1",
"cngdj3o",
"cngdor4",
"cngdpav",
"cngdqje",
"cngdxwk",
"cngdyyd",
"cnge20p",
"cngeem3",
"cngelcq",
"cngem5q",
"cngemij",
"cngemxu",
"cngevob",
"cngffqg",
"cngfofx",
"cngfpjs",
"cngfuuf",
"cngfvud",
"cngfxah",
"cngfzkk",
"cngg1cg",
"cngg7rp",
"cnggaer",
"cngggtn",
"cnggkgu",
"cnggp8m",
"cnggq6g",
"cnggz70",
"cnggzrp",
"cngh0bp",
"cngh0c6",
"cnghe7p",
"cngho10",
"cngi6p4",
"cngiiv9",
"cngimje",
"cngimzt",
"cngindn",
"cngio60",
"cngiun4",
"cngj0wt",
"cngj4g8",
"cngja5o",
"cngji20",
"cngjqk4",
"cngkjlt",
"cngkoqp",
"cngkyzk",
"cngl4hp",
"cnglj1r",
"cngm35u",
"cngn3ba",
"cngnl0i",
"cngp343",
"cngphq4",
"cngpilh",
"cngpsig",
"cngqyov",
"cngqzgm",
"cngrng0",
"cngsh50",
"cngtnue",
"cngv8ie",
"cnh0f81",
"cnh1nvt"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
65,
3196,
486,
107,
18,
28,
77,
16,
7,
8,
6,
30,
2,
36,
9,
84,
3,
2,
111,
4,
2,
890,
3,
3,
7,
11,
2,
6,
7,
3,
4,
2,
52,
2,
13,
2,
2,
67,
227,
16,
4,
4,
3,
2,
20,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
3,
6,
3,
3,
3,
11,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
6,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
13,
5,
2,
2,
3,
9,
2,
2,
2,
2,
20,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
5,
3,
3,
8,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
6,
2,
3,
3,
2,
5,
4,
5,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"High Federal tax rate in Europe pays for the university. Here in Murica, smaller state taxes subsidize public university.",
"We could afford to make college free also but we choose to spend the majority of our money on the military so we can be the world police.",
"There are not enough professors and buildings to give education to everyone that wants it. That's true in both the US as well as other countries.\n\nAs with many things the US has taken the approach of allowing private universities to charge whatever they please. So the factor that limits education becomes the ability to pay for it.\n\nIn other countries university is funded much more heavily by tax dollars. But there's still not space for everyone. So earlier testing determines who gets into university, who gets in to technical school and who does not. \n\nSo wheres in the US you can get into the local university with a 60 average, that's not the case in Germany. Those borderline students who can simplt pay to play in the US don't have that option here. Basically admissions are more tightly controlled.\n\nAs with medicine, this practice also limits competition when it comes to employment of professors. So they tend not to jump from school to school to get a better wage and it also means the highest level schools don't need to pay uber high wages. \n\nThe US system however allows schools like Harvard or the other ivy league schools to exist. The best profs with the most intense classes and the most prestigious end product. \n\nSo as with most things the US model creates higher highs and lower lows.",
"Most EU countries have a higher tax rate than the US, combined with significantly lower military spending and smaller populations than the US.\n\nIn 2011, Germany had a tax revenue of $1.551 trillion. In that same year, the US had a tax revenue of $4.218 trillion\n\nThe US had a population of 311.6 million. Germany had a population of 81.8 million.\n\nThen, on top of that, of their $4.218 trillion the US spent $693.485 billion on military. Germany spent $48.8 billion.\n\nSo the US only had 2.71x more tax revenue despite having 3.8x more people - and then the US spent 14.2x more on their military than Germany.\n\n(All values listed in USD$ and sourced from Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth)",
"Because Germany, and similar countries, view the cost of educating their people as an investment in their country's future. ",
"First off, 50k is for private or Ivy League universities, which are above the state school cost of about 30k. So how did these rates come about? Other redditors listed reasons of different values, lower taxes, military spending, and so on all have an effect, but let's look from the university's point of view. \n\nPicture yourself as a university that can set tuition price. You charge your students 15k a year. They are all good students that should be at your university and pass. \n\nThen little Joey McShitface comes along, he took 10 years to graduate high school, but really wants to go to your university. You know he won't graduate, Joey should know he won't, but he is willing to pay. You figure, hey, 15k extra, I can replace the outdated equipment in the lab with that money. So Joey is now in your university. \n\nYour smart students learn Joey is a goofball, and get angry that the university they worked hard and slaved away in high school for can be attended by someone like Joey. As the university president, you come up with a solution. You charge 30k a year for any student willing to pay, but offer scholarships to bring it down to 15k for those good students. This way, all the students are happy. Joey achieves his lifelong dream of flunking out of your university, the smart kids see rewards for their hard work, and the university gets more funds to grow their university ad provide a better experience for their students. ",
"European schools have fewer frills and do not have to pay a shit ton of money to Coaches of collegiate sports teams. They also vet students earlier and get people into trade schools if the are not college material. They also do not offer underwater basket weaving or other useless elective classes. ",
"Well, they don't spend 60% of their government discretionary income on military spending, for one thing...",
"Education costs are paid for by taxes. If you ever go to Germany, you'll notice the significantly higher tax they pay. It's a worthy investment, so most Germans don't complain.",
"In Denmark we receive money for taking an education after we have our 18th birthday.. Its called SU (statens uddannelsesstøtte) and basically you get payed every month for going on University or late high school. Im not 18 yet, so there might be some details i missed. If i recall correctly my friend got around 2000DKK last month from SU.\n",
"Because Germany does not have banks dependent on the college loan system to stay afloat. My father often kids that he will own his house before he owns his undergraduate or law degree. The joke never really hits, but it sure says something about how fucked we all are. ",
"Because education in the US is a business. Its all about making money.",
"Go to community college, then transfer. Not as bad.",
"What always amazes me when people say we pay less taxes in U.S. compared to say Germany. They also forget to acknowledge what exactly that covers between the two countries. Once you factor in insurance and other expenses that aren't taxes in U.S. but are covered in Germany as an example we often end up paying as much or more.",
"Don't have an answer for the ELI5 but since prospective students will possibly looking here, why not consider studying overseas?\n\nFor example, a BSc in South Africa will cost you R 150,000 for all three years at the University of Cape Town. This is will cost you only $12,792.30 for your entire three year course! \n\nYou will get to explore another part of the world and meet different kinds of people which can really change a person for the better. You will also become a millionaire overnight since the US$ will be so much stronger than the foreign currency.\n\nThe costs in the US are ridiculous and it makes it almost impossible to study at a university in the US if your countries currency doesn't match up or have the same daily living cost/earning. The amount they wanted for a course I was looking to do would buy you a good double-story house here. \n\nThe only downside is stuff like crime and the [Tokoloshe.](_URL_0_)\n",
"You can't compare public universities with private ones. In-state rates for residents in many universities or colleges that are publicly funded are incredibly affordable. You can take 2 years of core at a community college, and then finish at a state university for a few hundred dollars a semester (which for most can be covered with pell grants) if you really want to be cheap about it. In america, however, we romanticize the idea of the college experience which is what you are paying for. Yes, a liberal arts school where you get to live in the dorms and play beer bong on thirsty thursday and ultimate frisbee on the quad while pledging a frat is going to run you a couple hundred grand in some cases. Not to say that there isn't some value to the experience, but many seem to think that this is needed rite of passage. I did one year at one of those schools and quit due to money...my actual degree cost less in 4 years than that one year at a private school cost. Most of my loans are from money I took out so I could pay rent and live while focusing on my studies (i'd imagine that this would be the same anywhere unless Germany pays living expenses for university students, which is awesome if that's the case). However, that was a choice my wife and I made so I could focus on studies instead of working a job that ate up too much time. ",
"Go look at the salaries and homes of the people running Universities in America. They're getting fat off of students backs.",
"One thing I would like to clear up, while yes in America there are a lot of Private Universities of $50k+, there are also many college educations that can be obtained for much less. State schools, while getting up in price as well, are cheaper. There are usually cheaper options within. From my experience as a recent college graduate, unless you want to make $100,000/year out of college, it doesn't matter where you go to school. What matters is getting a worthwhile degree in field you would like to continue in, actually paying attention in class and learning, getting a worthwhile internship(s), and most of all, hard work. Where you go, does not matter as long as you can accomplish the above there.",
"This isn't an ELI5 about taxes in the USA and Germany however there has been some discussion about how the tax rate in Germany is higher. While that is true, the services provided by the higher tax rate are those that we would deem compulsory in the USA and therefore their expenditure whether through taxes or not still comes out of our personal treasury. In the USA we are not taxed for personal health insurance or university education however we still reasonably have to save for them or be faced with not having the service or having to incur debt to handle it. \n\nSo while the Germans are paying more in taxes for these critical services, we are simply paying out of pocket for them.",
"These American colleges with 50k+ tuition are private institutions though and as private institutions they can charge whatever they want as long as there's demand for it. A more fair comparison would be the state university tuition which is about 7k/year (less if you qualify for various financial aid) vs. the free college education.",
"I don't get the argument \" Europe can afford that because they don't have to pay for a huge military, the US is protecting them \". I see this pretty often on those type of posts.\n\nProtecting Europe from what exactly ?",
"I'm guessing that not pouring billions into athletics keeps tuition down in Europe, as well.",
"free? Dude i have to pay... like... 200 Euros a year! and what do i get for it? I can drive the bus without charge and get a lot of price reductions everywhere... i mean... that is... really a good deal. you guys should come to germany. Also our cables go underground, yeah get that innovation!",
"In the US, education is an industry.\n\nIn the EU, education is education.\n\nEDIT: \n\nHoly crap gold, you just made my day stranger.",
"To add further to the comments here: because it's a different buyer system. In America, students pay a price to go to a university and use whatever services as an individual. In Germany, the funding given to a university is heavily scrutinized and as the government is the one paying for all students collectively, the can keep the prices down.\n\nEli5: imagine you have a store selling apples. You sell your apples for $5, because you like money. Everyone comes to your store, says \"$5! Wow that's expensive\" but they buy it because they're hungry.\n\nNow imagine everyone in town wants an apple so they all get together and put their money together. They come up to you and say \"we'll buy every apple you get this year. But not for $5. Well pay your costs, plus 5% for overheads. Or we'll all buy our apples somewhere else\". ",
"educated people understand the importance of proper healthcare and education... enough said",
"We can afford to also - We just choose not to because someone's bonus or stock may go down a a few percentage points.\n\nSome will cite that the EU has higher taxes, which it may on it's surface, but do not let this fool you, the US collects a RIDICULOUS amount of taxes as our defense budget clearly shows. Not that we should reduce spending big bucks on the military, but the money is there.\n\nWe spend more per capita on education than the EU, and it sucks.\nWe spend more per capita on healthcare than the EU, and it sucks.\n\nAnswer - The problem with the U.S. is not money or resources, the problem with U.S. is poor business, economic, and civil growth philosophy. It is our CHIOCE not make it affordable.",
"most public university students i go to school with don't even pay that much for their entire undergrad...private schools however...",
"The U.S. higher education system has been heavily subsidized for years. Government regulation of student loans, policies of low interest rates, and heavy assistance with grants have inflated the cost of tuition. As a result, many students are being given loans that they will never be able to pay back. Banks would not ordinarily do this, because they would not get their money back. Eventually, the volume of failed loans will be inflated by these low interest rate policies until they reach a critical mass and the bubble bursts.\n\nThe same thing happened with the housing bubble in the recession. Low interest rate policies by the government, and easy loans by public-private entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a housing bubble, which burst when the failed loans and mortgages could not be paid back.",
"One might wonder why Silicon Valley arose among Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UC San Francisco, and the #2 US technology cluster arose near Harvard, MIT, and Boston University. Germany is quite desperate to produce its own Silicon Valley, but is nowhere close. Your question might be better framed, “How can such a large, rich country like Germany have so few universities among the world’s best?”\n\nIf you look at the Shanghai ranking of the world’s universities, 16 of the top 20 are in the US, and four of those are state universities in California (members of the nine UC state universities). Also in California (where I am from) there is a parallel state university system (California State University) consisting of 23 universities. I got a master’s degree from UCLA at quite low cost; the CSU universities are even cheaper. Yes, California has a few expensive private universities, but these are *dwarfed* by the state universities. California is 1/8 of the US population.\n\nMany students at private universities get financial aid. Most private universities have highly loyal alumni who donate large sums, so the universities have huge endowments. The US system is really quite different, and defies a simple comparison as suggested in the naive OP. The US Government guarantees large student loans; while the wisdom of this is debatable, they do represent government aid. One can also debate the morality of subsidizing the educations of the future elite.\n\nBesides countries’ total population and wealth you need to look at their *student-age* population. Last I heard, Germany had a very low birth rate, especially if you exclude Turkish immigrants.\n\nPosters here have foolishly brought up total education budgets, including primary and secondary (K-12) education, which is a whole other story, though related. US public per-pupil spending is huge, e.g. $16K/year in New Hampshire. It makes up roughly 1/3 of state+local government budgets. If US schools did a better job with all that money, fewer of our kids would have to go to university.",
"Actually, a couple of US states and a few additional cities do provide free college educations for their students.\n\nMy college tuition was paid for by the state of West Virginia.",
"You're asking entirely the wrong question. The proper question is \"Why do institutions in the US get away with charging 0.5 million dollars for 'tuition', when many European countries are able to educate many more people, at less cost to the people and the country?\"\n\nThe answer, in a word, is greed. ",
"They don't spend their entire budgets on defense",
"Simple answer as most have pointed out, taxes. You take home less money when working in Germany versus the States. The idea of credit cards doesn't really exist in Germany. Home loans? You can put 20% down in the US whereas you probably need 80% down in Germany. ",
"Elite engineering schools in France have a budget of 15000-20000€ per student per year (research included). About 10000€ for education and 8000€ for research (but many things are shared).\n\nStudents pay 500€, the state pays 10000€, corporations pay 8000€.\n\nWe don't have fancy sport facilities, just standard ones, no fancy library, just a standard one, no fancy administrators, and so on.",
"#This thread has been targeted by a *possible* downvote-brigade from ***[/r/Shitstatistssay](_URL_2_)***\n\n* *[In these comments: why can't the US Government pay for my education?!](_URL_2_)*\n\n**Members of *[/r/Shitstatistssay](_URL_2_)* active in this thread:**\n\n\n\n\n\n* [/u/auryn0151](_URL_17_)☠☠☠☠☠\n\n\n\n* [/u/Cockdieselallthetime](_URL_4_)☠☠\n\n\n\n* [/u/TOASTEngineer](_URL_7_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/JoeJoeCoder](_URL_18_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/qp0n](_URL_14_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/wral](_URL_8_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/IMLOwl](_URL_5_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/heartsandunicorns](_URL_0_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/MightierThanThou](_URL_11_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/SLeazyPolarBear](_URL_13_)☠☠☠\n\n\n\n* [/u/Classh0le](_URL_1_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/pikk](_URL_3_)☠\n\n\n\n* [/u/trenescese](_URL_6_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/Subrosian_Smithy](_URL_16_)☠☠\n\n\n\n* [/u/112-Cn](_URL_9_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/Ruskerdax](_URL_15_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/thelightbulbison](_URL_10_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/afrofrycook](_URL_12_)\n\n\n\n* [/u/tessl](_URL_19_)\n\n\n\n-----\n^★ *^Now ^Edward ^Snowden ^has ^become ^the ^latest ^fugitive ^of ^US ^imperialism, ^his ^only ^crime ^being ^that ^he ^told ^embarrassing ^truths ^about ^the ^US ^government. ^--alan ^woods* ^★\n\n",
"Almost no colleges charge that much for tuition. Overhead on grants and endowments run most universities, not your tuition. ELI5: Why do college students live in luxury condos for 5+ years, eat and drink out most nights of the week, then blame their financial problems on everyone else?",
"in the US you have to go to war to get free college.",
"Education in the United States is a for-profit industry. Look at all the bull shit with textbooks. I had a professor that required the students to use the textbook that he edited..That guy can go fuck himself, because that book cost $300. ",
"As someone who has studied under both systems, the real answer is likely that Germany allows much fewer students to go to University. In Switzerland only roughly 10% of people are qualified. Basically unless you are in the top 10% you will go do an apprenticeship after high school. Only doctors, engineers etc go to university. You don't go for a basic business degree like in the US. \nIn the US no matter how bad you were in High School you can always buy your way into college. It doesn't work like that in Europe, either you are qualified or you go the apprenticeship route. This vastly cuts the number of students down making it much more affordable.",
"There is an angle here that is not being covered: the cost of education per student in each country. I don't have data only personal experience. As a graduate of an American college now studying at a German university, here is what I can tell you: my undergraduate education had a lot of unnecessary fixins'. Dining hall open 12 hours a day with unlimited food. Beautiful facilities. An extraordinary gym. Free intramural sports opportunities. But the 'free' part is misleading; clearly, these things aren't free. Attending a US university is more like belonging to a really awesome sports/social/lifestyle club where every conceivable interest that group members might have is paid for by the collective. By comparison, the dining halls here are open at specific times, the food is significantly cheaper but you also have much fewer options. The gym -- when considered per capita -- is tiny. \nFor whatever reason, US schools compete along these (what I would consider secondary) dimensions and its lead to an arms race of expensive stuff that we don't really need. \nAnd it's also my intuitive sense that students here are expected to be able to take care of themselves more and at an earlier age than in the US. \nSometimes, I feel like too many things are skimped; the library isn't always open, for instance and it's the norm here--at least in my department--for classes NOT to use textbooks but just slides instead. I usually have to go out of my way to figure out what appropriate reading material for the class is.\nTLDR: Regardless of how much money each country spends per capita, it's important also to consider expenditure per student and along this dimension, schools in Germany, relative to the US, are significantly cheaper.",
"The U.S. actually spends the most per capita on education in the world. While Germany certainly has a great model for college education and there is much the U.S. can learn from their system, there are some very similar properties between the two nations:\n\nFirst and foremost, they both provide free college education. The United States certainly has more than their fair share of very expensive educations, but those are mostly private institutions that charge a premium for providing premium services (exceptional faculty, high-level housing and food, extensive resources, state-of-the-art facilities, etc.). There are thousands of colleges across the U.S. that are both accessible and affordable (government aid, free tuition, cheap tuition, etc.) for everybody from the lower to upper class. (I do agree that there are *never* more than enough schools.) \n\nSecond, they both place a very high value on educating their citizens. This is evidenced by both the high level of quality that their colleges provide and the high level of quality graduates that these colleges produce. This is further evidenced by the amount that each nation spends per capita on education. The U.S. is at the top of the list and Germany is very close. (I do agree that you could *never* spend too much on education.)\n\nFinally, to describe the difference, the U.S. simply has a much, *much* larger population to educate, while also having to do so without hiking taxes (Americans HATE taxes). To compensate for this, most Americans are able to use this extra income that didn't go to taxes for private schooling. Most Americans come from a family that is associated with a religion, so most of these private schools are also religious institutions. This allows parents to send their kids to quality schools while also giving them a religious education. If you compare the numbers between, say, a Catholic school tuition and the amount of taxes paid for education in a European country, you will find that they are very similar. Americans simply like to have the extra cash and spend it themselves instead of the government.\n\nSide Note: I am an American of German descent so I love both countries and may be a little biased. \n\n**(Links)**\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n**(Links for articles that go against my argument)**\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_4_\n\n**EDIT**: I must add that people come to the United States to study in college mainly because of the high-level education that is received at top universities. The United States boasts 66 of the top 100 colleges in the world. In comparison, the second country (China) only has 7. Germany has 3. ",
"Germany values education, America only cares about $.",
"In addition to economics, culturally America has more anti-intellectualism. As Isaac Asimov put it:\n\n > \"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.\"\n\nAnti-intellectualism is fed by the media to encourage a consumer culture that buys before they think. It leads to a completely different concept of what a college *is*. Instead of educating people, we train them to get jobs. We rationalize that it doesn't matter if we put people into debt, because a college degree will let the earn enough to erase it. ",
"Don't have the answer but I would have asked it like this. \"How can we afford to charge students 50k+ a year in the United States? Meanwhile countries like Germany give free college education.\"\n\nSeems like we are going to be left behind.",
"A lot of it comes down to just placing more value on education than other things like military spending. Hats a culture difference. But in terms of just economics and the system as a whole there are a couple key differences:\n\n1) Germany has a much higher individual tax rate, so the assumption is that over a lifetime the government will make more money off of your college education than it costs to get you that education.\n\n2) Many non-degree jobs offer a high quality of life due to the prevalence of unions and well-funded welfare programs. Vocational schools are more common and highly respected. Attending University isn't a prerequisite for a comfortable life in the same way it is here.\n\n3) Generally, European schools are subject to much tighter costs than the US. They sell the education, not \"the college experience,\" so there's less need for expensive stuff like shiny new dorms, state of the art 100k-seater stadia, fancy rec centers, celebrity professors, etc to attract students.",
"This post quickly turned into a massive circle-jerk of misinformation and speculation....",
"There's a few things here.\n1. In you're in the US, tuition does not cost $50k/year. I'm in Canada and tuition appears comparable. I took engineering at UW (Canada) and cost about $5000/semester. The cost was roughly the same at several US universities I looked up (U of Texas (Austin) ).\n\n2. Not everyone is Germany goes or thinks they should go to university. It is much more common in Europe to 'stream' students into academic or trade schools. or combined degrees. This is much less acceptable in North America, even Canada for some reason. This results in lower costs.\n\n3. This last issue I haven't researched as much, but I suspect it to be true. The pay for German educators and university workers might not be as high.\n\n",
"Scotland also provides free university and college tuition if you are from Scotland...good luck if your moving in from over the border in England though, they need to pay.",
"We have free schools/universities in Finland. The math is slightly more complicated but let's do this ELI5 way. I own a university and the people working there pay 50% of their income back to me from direct taxes, VAT etc. So If I pay them 1000€ I get most of it back on one way or another. That means that the true costs are lower than the numbers imply. Secondly if people get a high education they will make better salary in the future. Again I get more money from taxes because they have high salary. People with high education are part of a happy society so there's less costs in the long run... Some might even ask how much it costs to the society if people can't afford the education they want.\r\rSo, the cost and benefit quite often is actually win-win. I think education and health care should be available to everyone. Luckily that's the case here.",
"This is a really multifaceted issue so I suggest you take all of the responses together. One important factor is faculty pay. Tenured professors in Germany make roughly 60-70k USD, where as in the United States a tenured professor can make almost double that. The same is true in France, but to an even larger degree.",
"They tax everyone so everyone can go to school. It helps that some people don't, I imagine.",
"These things are related. The more funding a University gets from the State/Government, the less they have to charge in tuition. \n\nAlso, the Universities here have to chip in for things like Health Care for their employees, which in other countries is funded through taxes. ",
"It is because those countries recognize college education and Universal Health Care as national priorities and critical foundational elements of their country, therefore they pay for it. \n\nIn the US we don't view higher education as a national priority. \n\nSure it cost money in the form of more taxes, but so what? It is an investment into our country, and investment into our future and ultimately our place in the world. \n",
"Because American politicians somehow manage to talk the country into believing that the most important thing is a low tax rate even though just about every citizen short of the richest 1% end up paying more for education and medical expenses then they would If they just paid a tax rate that would cover those things. America is basicly a lottery state, every citizen acts like they are going to win the lottery tomorrow, so they better make decisions based on them being rich, it makes no sense but that's the way it is. Why would you want government covered medical when you will be rich tomorrow and can afford the best, why would you want free education when you will be rich tomorrow and can afford the best, better not raise taxes that will save me money in the long run because when i'm rich tomorrow that 1% increase will be like a million dollars. ",
"The US could easily afford to give free education through a Ph.D. if the will were there to do so. The USA is way too hyper-focused on immediate profits. Short-sighted buffoons is the term I like to use.\n\nThe Germans understand that an educated populace means a strong country that has the will and ability to set its own course. The American leadership are just short-sighted buffoons.",
"I'm single and 47% of my salary goes to taxes in Germany. Also, not everyone gets to go to college for free here. There are really strict requirements to go to university, and you start getting sorted towards the college track or not when you are 10 years old. You do have to pay room and board etc. - it's like California state schools are tuition free, but that doesn't mean it's completely free, there are still some costs involved. It is a lot cheaper but only a small percentage of people get to take advantage of it. They have a lot of internships, trade, and vocational schools though for all the rest. It's a completely different social system and both have positives and negatives and it simply is not compatible with many deeply held cultural values in the US. -source, American teacher working in Germany",
"The primary driver for the high cost of education in the U.S. is cheap student loans and financial aid. Schools can charge a lot because 18 year old kids who don't know any better can get essentially free (at the time) currency to pay the bill. Because of this universities have no reason to lower costs.",
"I would say most of the points have been made. To sum it up; \n\nEU citizens pay more taxes than the US, it is more oriented towards education & well-being than in the US. Where I live you also get paid to study in a university, get cheaper housing, among other benefits.\n\nPrivate vs public enterprises makes a huge difference, the private one's of course aim to make profit, so a free university would be much cheaper by comparison and would be focused on providing the services they are paid to make. This means they can also cut other unnecessary costs like advertising, but you also won't get the same experience (no rich kids in frat houses riding quad bikes across massive university fields). Since education is considered vital, most people will go to university and therefore will take up whatever costs are offered, likewise in the US & UK a high expense university is often assumed to offer better services (premium product) so people will want to go there, especially if they succeeded in making themselves renown. \n\nFree education to me seems like quite a good thing. To encourage a healthy mind in your citizens and to offer them the possibility to achieve something special with their work, it boosts the economy. USA won't be changing that anytime soon, they hate high taxes, believe that public institutions make services worse, and worst of all the colleges will lobby and fight it every step of the way since it is a very highly profitable enterprise (the high-end one's, everybody wants a bright future and wealthy families can afford the price). \n\nP.S. USA also is known for taking well-educated citizens from other countries, by keeping high-costs to their universities USA can ensure wealthy people enter their country, thus boosting the economy in another way.",
"Because people in Germany give a shit about the future.",
"People with higher educations add more wealth to the economy of a nation over the course of their lives than the cost of said education, so it is a small investment on the part of the state to pay the tuition fees or subsidise them significantly.",
"US college tuitions have only skyrocketed in the past two decades. I went to a state uni 30+ years ago, when room, board & tuition was less than $3k/year. The primary driver of the increase has been a huge building boom of facilities. Not just needed facilities, like classrooms, but huge sports and exercise facilities as well, and all of them far more grand and lavish and modern than the four walls and a roof that are required. As each campus improved its facilites, others followed suit for fear of being left behind, appearing out-dated, rustic or worse. Low-interest financing fueled the fire and it went out of control. Your tuition is paying for this, while instructors are more and more rarely well paid or given full professor status; many work at pathetic wages with no benefits.",
"Because if there is one thing worth a country investing in it is a proper education system for youth hopefully one day america catches onto this fact.",
"everybody seem to forget the different premises between the two systems: In mainland Europe in general, Education and healthcare are paid for by the population on a socialized basis. \n\nThat means, your education and health are (in principle) not going to depend on your financial wealth, rather based on meritocracy (education especially). \n\nTherefore, theses systems are paid for **in advance** via the tax system, and the burden shared on a social basis. \n\nDespite the tax system in the USA being ultimately similar, there is a strong financial interest to keep education and health \"private\". That is, profit are privatized, losses are socialized. This is pretty much like the banking system, except the loss here is quality of life and general education.",
"I grew up over in the Netherlands and the US and I went to college over there for a couple of years.(Germany and the Netherlands school system system is very similar) I got very interested in why there was a disparity between the US and The Netherlands in terms of education costs and outcome. There are a couple of factors that need to be recognized. \nFor instance the US educational system is different from NL, starting at a young are kids are tested and the tests are used as a tier system for allowing the kids to pursue different types of college degrees. Most of the kids graduate high school at 16 and then go onto college or trades school. They are generally done with school at about 20 and then have degrees in a trade (and join a union) or a degree in a blue/white collar job. This gives They do have universities too which you can get a masters degree in stem. This system allows people to graduate and start work and start paying taxes it also. Part of why this system was setup was to work in conjunction with businesses so that they get trained/educated workers instead of having to pay to train the workers themselves.\n I am telling you this because it gets down to the focus of what their education system is about, they want people with to be able to get a job. This is in contrast to the US schooling system that focuses largely on producing a well rounded academic. The US education system pushes people onto college to be a well rounded academics instead of focusing on people being able to get a job. Why this is all comes back to the founding of the modern education system which started about a hundred years ago. \nAs is much of the case with any kind of system people look to make money of what every they can and the US government has allowed universities to charge money for their services to its students. Where as in NL the government and the businesses decided to subsidize colleges to get workers trained for the work force. This is the fundemental reasons why it costs so much to go to college. ",
"Once upon a time, the US used to be able help our kids go to college as well, then we started cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy...",
"Because the US is a giant mall where everything is for sale. If a college education was free...some ashole would scream \"evil socialism!\"....because their pockets weren't being lined.",
"Good question. An even better question is: How do the US manage to make their citizens pay *twice* (just in taxes, mind you!) into their virtually non-existent healthcare \"system\" than the citizens of any other industrialized country are paying, with much worse outcomes, and then US citizens have to pay for their insurance premiums *on top of that*? (All this has nothing to do with Obamacare either, this was the case long before Obamacare came around, and it's not any better now.)\n\nThe long and short of it is, the US is a corrupt corporatized hellhole. The money is there, it's just in the hands of an astronomically wealthy elite who is robbing the US population blind.",
"First, nothing is free. Some things are paid for by others, and that might seem nice if you're an economic ignoramus.\n\nIn the US, colleges became ridiculously expensive because well-meaning politicians tried to help. They, being economic ignoramuses themselves, made a virtually unlimited pot of money available.\n\nColleges, not being idiots, saw the tremendous opportunity here. They raised their prices at a rate far greater than inflation, knowing that for a long time, young people would mortgage their futures for a degree.\n\nAt that point, it became less about providing a quality education and more about attracting students through stupid degree programs (Klingon, underwater basket weaving, women's studies) and luxury dorms.\n\nThey don't care about outcomes, they care about pulling their piece of that giant pot of taxpayer-guaranteed money, and for that, the most profitable thing on earth is a student in a non-STEM major where they can pay some loon to spout their opinions in front of a couple hundred freshmen and call it \"Sociology 101.\"",
"U.S tends to deregulate the fees which means it lets the market choose how much college tuition costs. This, combined with increased demand to enter College means Tuition spikes up. In Germany, College tuition is not dictated by the market, meaning college tuition is dictated by what Germany says it is, thus College can be free or paid for, by the government. The idea is similar to universal healthcare. \n\n",
"Should be worth noting that universities in the US, for example, have a weird thing going where they will try to out-do one another. If one school gets a swimming pool the competing school will get a pool with a water slide, then the other will build a million dollar \"lazy river\" and the next thing you know tuition costs have doubled.\n\nThose universities that offer education for free certainly don't offer the extras that Americans have come to expect to be synonymous with the \"college experience\". ",
"Because German invests in the future. It sees its citizens as an asset to be invested and they will help build the economy and there will be an effective return in the investment.\n\nThe UK and US governments see their citizens as a cash cow to be milked.",
"From what I know North Dakota is talking about doing free college for people because of the big lump of cash they're pulling in from the oil fields and new people moving into the area. Nothing official yet just been talks about it on the local news.\n\nEdit: i know this has nothing to do with the question asked.",
"On top of all the other great answers here, Germany probably makes a lot of that money back from their happy, well-educated workforce.",
"Let's call it a virtuous circle.\nCulturally Germany is far more focussed on long term reward than short term reward. This is just as true for it's health and education systems as it is for German business. Bankers lend and invest in industry on something closer to a partnership model, where long term returns are valued. Businesses are required to have labour participate in the management of the company. Again this fosters a long term view.\nGermany has a good, affordable education system which provides excellent future employees which helps sustain a strong economy. \nCompanies do not have to directly organize and subsidize workers healthcare, and the state pension provides a reasonable standard of living. Yes, this funded through taxation, but it is a burden that German industry does not have to bear. Compare a German car-maker to, say, GM. GM's biggest cost is paying for the pensions and healthcare of it's current and retired employees. \n\nGerman society values education. Culturally German citizens are willing to pay for this and other benefits through taxation, because they believe that the country as a whole gains. A graduating German student does not have to worry about healthcare or an enormous burden of student loans. This means that their career opportunities are broader. And, of course, the cost of that education is lower. Salaries in typical German Universities are lower (but \"free\" healthcare and good pensions!). There are fewer small boutique educational institutions, so there are some economies of scale at the larger academies (big class sizes).\n\nGermany has a more equal society (in the sense of the difference between the poorest and richest) and by and large Germans are willing to pay the price of somewhat higher taxation.",
"Those countries with free education and healthcare have that because the previous generation pays for the next one via taxes. Americans strictly follow a \"fuck you I got mine\" policy so that sort of thing will never happen there. Ever. ",
"America isn't smart with its money first of all....\nSaying this as a warm blooded american who IS good with his money.",
"Germany prioritizes the well being of it's citizens, the US prioritizes it's business interests.",
"The U.S. universities could charge 5% of what they charge, and still survive as a business. And the fact that Germany pays a higher tax rate, so they can afford more socialized programs, helps a great deal as well. For some reason, half of the U.S. thinks socialism=communism, so they hold back this aspect of government as if it was still the 1700's.",
"Capitalism and greed have ruined this world for the upcoming generations.",
"US citizens don't want to pay for it. We'd rather subsidize prisons instead of pay for education. Blame the democrats and the republicans, they are the same thing.",
"you can spend money either on wars or education",
"I replied to a comment but I'm gonna reply to you so you see this. I lived in Germany during high school. German high school is way different than US high school. Around 8th grade or so you select a track, either an apprenticeship or a University track. If you select an apprenticeship you will spend high school getting trained to enter the workforce and indeed, after you graduate you will be qualified for the job you trained in. They still do this apprentice/journeyman/master thing in Germany. If you select the University track you go to what most americans would consider a normal high school...but its more difficult because the whole point of being in this school is to get into University. You have to take University entrance exams (they have some weird name I don't remember) but they are notoriously difficult...harder than the SATs. As a result there are fewer college students, so with a higher tax rate the country is able to support them. \n\nContrast that to the US where its becoming harder and harder to get even an entry level job without a bachelors degree. More student's should mean more revenue for US schools allowing them to drop tuition (especially as class sizes grow and classes are taught by grad students) but it didn't work that way. Instead tuition skyrocketed past the rate of inflation. Schools are quick to blame cuts in govt. funding and some would say that student loans, pell grants, and scholarships have replaced that and maybe that's true but its put a huge logistical burden on teenagers and families that maybe aren't very savvy about how to get funding. (There is money out there...but its like a full time job finding it). I'm still skeptical...I see 6 figure incomes for administrative positions that didn't exist thirty years ago...but this is just the perspective of an outsider. There appear to be more Deans and Coordinators and so on while the number of professors shrinks.\n\nAnother problem with shifting funding from direct federal aid to this loan/grant system is the number of predatory institutions that have sprung up to take your money. I wen't to college with the GI bill and I know a lot of people who spent all of their GI bill money going to bullshit online colleges. These for profit schools would bend over backwards to get your money, helping you with paperwork. The better customer service just made it the path of least resistance for some people. Then they graduate with a useless degree and can't get a job. It's really sad.\n\nTL;DR - So to sum it up...Germany can pay for school because there are fewer kids actually going to college due to the high employability of high school graduates...AND...higher taxes.",
"There's something that most of these posts are overlooking: German and American universities have different goals. Due to the incredibly high tuition, American universities end up with far more resources and thus end up being the most prestigious universities in the world; that is their primary objective (and one that is also supported by the U.S. government).",
"Some countries like to invest in the future through education.\n\nSome countries like to invest in the future of those pulling the strings by keeping them filthy rich and keeping the rest in debt.",
"Countries that subscribe to a philosophy of quality of life recognize the value of an educated public and work force. Those that subscribe to a predator philosophy see education as just another business and students as just more pigeons. It has nothing to do with economics, but everything to do with the relationships between the citizens, the government, and the corporations. ",
"I live in Denmark, and, correct me if i'm wrong, we have, if not the highest, then one of the highest taxrates in the world. It depends on your income, so if you have a little income you pay around 20℅ and then you pay more of the extra you make. Up to around 60℅. So basicly to get 100 kroner, you have to make 200. But then we get publicschool, highschool, universety, all kinds of education, hospitals, and all for free. And then, if you are willing to pay extra you can get it all privatised, but most people use the public. The service is alround the same. We pay for dental care though.... ",
"Serious question hat may get buried: \nDoes everyone go to college in Germany?\nI've noticed in some countries (UK) that not everyone goes to a university, joining the military or getting a professional job or trade are considered valid options. \n\nHere in the US, everyone can get a degree through a community college- you don't have to \"get in\" - thus many jobs that shouldn't require a degree now do- do you need an Associates degree to be a secretary? Of course not. Yet you can get away with requiring it. We now have a system in which you must have a BS to manage a McDonalds so people go into debt to get degrees in nonsense just to have them to get a low paying job! \n\nI wish we had a different system. I really do :(",
"Priorities. The US buys F-35s so the europeans can go to college.",
"Military Spending (cough cough). The US could literally give everyone in the US a free education, end world hunger, cure multiple diseases, greatly enhance our infrastructure, push towards solar/wind energy infrastructure if only we didn't spend all of our money on fighting wars.\nAnd so few Americans think 9/11 was an inside job. What do you think was the main catalyst for all of this? Follow the paper trail you fucking idiots. Literally living on the same planet with people who can't see what is happening makes me sick to my stomach because there is no hope for humanity.",
"It helps that Germany made it possible to grow richer while making the rest of the Euro Countries poor.",
"A few reasons, 1: their taxes are much much more than that of the USA and this subsidises much of the costs. 2: They allow corporations to sponsor divisions of the school (not sure if this is allowed in USA) and this subsidises it further and 3: It's much more selective to get into college in Germany and you have to do well throughout all your schooling to be put on track to go to college, otherwise you go to other schools that you will learn a trade instead.",
"Because the value of your education is arbitrary. Are you getting $50k 'worth' of education per year?\n\nI doubt it.",
"I'd say it has a lot to do with wealth/power inequality. The rich people in charge of the universities can charge pretty much whatever they want and spend on unnecessary things like paying the coach of their football team 8 million a year like UM. ",
"It isn't free. It's just paid for differently.",
"thats because recently an irish university president was decrying he earns only 240k eur a year, while in us his peers earn 750k. \n\nwell i guess its the same. would you rather have 750k knowing your students will be paying student debt till their 40s-50s or would you have 250k eur, which is kinda 325k usd, and your students be able to start a family by getting approved for a loan before they hit 40\n\ndecisions decisions",
"US gives all its money to oil companies, prisons, and wars. ",
"Education isn't as expensive as private universities want you to think. A generation of American children have been told that they have to go to college so schools can charge whatever they want knowing that people will still pay because it isn't an optional expense in most people's minds.",
"Much higher taxes and much less defence spending",
"\nPeople in the US don't like paying taxes for something they might not use themselves - it's one step away from rolling out the carpet for the reds\n\nHere in Europe, we're just like fuckit, tax us, at least we get free healthcare and decent education",
"Nice try America. We are not telling you our German secrets",
"That's pretty easy to answer. \nSo I earn around 120.000 US dollars a year. However I do pay 60% of that in taxes, so my paycheck for a year is really only around $48.000. From that I have to pay yearly rent, foods etc. \n\nThat means the $72.000 is going for healthcare, education, tax, church tax, retirement savings etc. So my education is paid over taxes as I live. \n\nLet's just say that each year, that $10.000 of those money go to education, I have really paid $500.000 in 50 years for my education. However if you are under education and above the age of 18, you do get between $350-800 a month. So you don't really have to work when you are taking it.\n\nSource: I am a dane that has taken an education and had a paycheck.",
"It's because the strenght of the worker's movement and the communist \"threat\" made possible a welfare state, much better for the masses, in most european countries. In the USA the rich had (and have) the upper hand in politics because it's repressive police state disbanded all the revolutionary organizations by killing, imprisoning or silencing its members (ex: McCarthy's witch hunt, the strikes against the Black Panther Party, etc.).",
"I'm a bit late to this whole thing, but people seem to think way more Germans get free college than really do. Some students get sent into a highschool where moving into college afterwards is difficult to attain. I don't think Germany has a high of rates of college graduation in the first place.",
"Went on a ramble here but\n\nTL:DR\n\nWant free education in America? \nFind a politician that isnt a pawn for business'\nVote them in.\nPetition and vote for a law change.\nRaise your taxes so that everybody pays the same % of earnings to the state.\nSupport having a tiny bit less in your pocket every month.\nFree Education\n\nYou dont just benefit from free education, everyone does.",
"European countries care more about their citizens",
"one other factor that makes education cheaper in Germany's neighbour, the Netherlands, is that universities tend to work more together then the universities in the USA do. In the USA it's more about competing with other universities and looking good in comparison.\n\nOverall the Netherlands have a culture in which consensus is important. We have to discuss eeeeverything and eeeeverybody gets to weigh in. We talk till we're blue in the face! And then we work together towards a common goal. Universities share labs and equipment and facilities and publications.\nMight be true for German universities too.",
"Nobody is mentioning two important factors.\n\nThe United States believes that everybody should go to University, Germany does not. Germany shuttles many would-be-students out to trade schools or straight into the work-force.\n\nThe United States does not pay for education, it offers cheap financing so that many many kids can go and pay for it later despite the fact that they shouldn't go at all. \n\nSo it's a trade off. In the states, more kids go to college. But it costs kids more. In Germany, fewer kids go to college, but it is free. \n\nHint: The latter is better.",
"Federal government spending on higher education in the United States is distributed across something like 5,000 colleges and universities, or every Title IV public and private institution. Germans only federally fund a select few public institutions, but put up the total cost of students at those institutions- they fund private schools minimally, if at all. In America, the government and people value individual choice more than public efficiency. As such, we want the government to help pay for any school we choose, even when those dollars buy \"less\" education because the tuition expense is higher at a private school. \n\nHigher education funding in the US isn't necessarily less in dollar amount per student, but it is definitely distributed to a wider selection of schools. This support allows many of those institutions to remain in business, but barely. These schools supplement that federal income with either state support (public institutions) or high tuition (private institutions). ",
"american universities are for-profit businesses for the most part, therefor, they are trying to make as much money as possible.",
"Taxes. Also you may not have a choice on major. A guy I worked with is from Greece. He was forced to study accounting while in college. He hated it.",
"The answer is that public colleges in America are funded at the state level, not the federal level. States view it as a way of investing in their own citizens' education. However, it has become increasingly common for graduates to immediately move out of state as part of the overall economic polarization of America. So you can't blame the state government for wondering why it's footing the bill to educate the citizens of another state.\n\nThere's another issue in that American college education as a whole -- public and private alike -- has become a lot more expensive in the past generation, which affects the labor market for the best professors and administrators and raises students' expectations for the quality of the facilities. There are a lot of reasons for that trend, but I would lay the blame on two factors in particular:\n\n* College applicants generally (rationally) choose among colleges largely on the basis of rankings and prestige, because the difference in future earning power more than makes up for whatever minimal price delta there is between different schools; it is not like buying a refrigerator where price is one of the most important considerations.\n\n* The federal government provides massive student loans that aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy. Congress acts like it's doing students a favor when it does this. In practice, it is giving colleges more room to increase tuition and saddle students with more debt.\n\nGiven that their private college competition is getting more expensive and there's not much incentive to keep tuition low (since students will show up in droves either way), the state universities don't view this as a choice between state funding and tuition funding, they (correctly) view it as a choice between less money or more money, and they choose more money.",
"C'mon guys, this is easy: capitalism in a non conventional market! The government hands out loans, consequently anyone can come up with the funds (notice I didn't say \"afford\") that are required, consequently Universities are not incentivized to manage their costs nearly as much. Do you know how much a university president makes? A \"not for profit\" title does not necessarily equate to looking out for your best interests or running the business efficiently.",
"Germany and other EU countries have very large (in terms of physical dollars) education budgets in relation to their population. The US technically has a larger population and GDP spending, but there's very little of that money that actually goes *to* education itself, as a good chunk of it goes towards raises for the school boards, books, new football stadiums (because they are a worthwhile investment with PTA's and Bake Sales and Booster clubs, and the list goes on. \n \nFor an ELI5, you have two people, John and Mike. John makes $125K/year, owns his homes, owns his car, has no debt, and a good investment portfolio. Even though he's making a lot of money, he spends it wisely on things that need to be spent on, and probably focuses most of his money in things that will grow his money over time. Mike lives in an apartment, because he believes home ownership is a scam. He still owes $15,000 on his car, and he's 30 days behind on payments because he spends all the rest of his money on fast food and fun. Mike is living the good life, and is spending a lot more money than mike every year, but he has very little to show for it, except possibly a huge obese gut and an addiction to spending. \n \nJohn, is Germany, and Mike is the USA. We spend more than Germany on education, but we don't actually use it for education. We use it on things we can deem education related (like hosting philanthropic $10,000/plate gala fundraisers which usually cost more to throw the gala than the gala actually brings in, but the money spent on the gala is education money, while the gala money is freed up to spend however they feel.) and we use it when we absolutely must, on things like books and new lights in the classroom, and *maybe* a small 1.5% raise to the teachers so they don't strike again for the third time this year, while summarily voting the school board get a 12% pay raise, because you know, this is HARD work, deciding what to spend all this money on! \n \nThe list goes on where you will see a lot of people trying to point out we spend more per capita on our citizens than Germany does, but it fails to take into account graduation rates, success rates, unemployment rates, etc. \n \nAlso, Germany and many other EU countries have much higher tax rates and other assorted taxes (VAT, communal, etc.) to make sure the government stays well funded. This helps offset the cost of education. In america, we are basically anti-tax, and expect the government to \"cut the fat\" and not charge us any more money. \n \nFor reference: \nThe national public debt in Germany declined by 7,666 million euros in the first quarter of 2014 and is currently at 2,139,362 million. \n \n_URL_0_ The US's debt is around $18 trillion. \n \nGiven the size of the population, this means that my share of the debt is around $60,000. In Germany, my debt would only be about $35,000. \n \nWe, as a nation, are spending more money than we have on things we don't justifiably need while making cuts to things we deem as secondary and tertiary. Germany just happens to think that education is more important than military might.",
"I see a lot of sentiment in this thread about how the US is greedy or doesn't value education and I can't help but get a little depressed that people actually buy into these platitudes. The reason the US higher education system costs so much money is precisely because they value higher education. In the last few decades, it became the mantra of Americans and the American government that *everyone* should be able to go to college. Think about the repercussions of that. There isn't the capacity for everyone to go to college and there certainly isn't the need. \n\nSo how did it happen? The federal government decided that it would extend practically unlimited credit to millions of 18 year olds. It's just a function of supply in demand. Unlimited credit increased the demand for college incredibly. It should be no surprise that colleges raise tuition. Because so many people want to go to school, universities have to attract students by building new facilities, new amenities and making colleges as attractive to applicants as possible. Since most colleges are non-profit and there is a surge of money coming in, they just expandexpandexpandexpandexpand and hire more and more administrators and give themselves bloated salaries.\n\nThis is not some deficit of national pride or compassion. The US had great intentions. How could it be bad to make college available to everyone? However, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Now you have a job market saturated with overqualified graduates saddled with a mountain of debt. What good did going to college do for them?\n\nThe basic fact is that governments are stupid. The US government is stupid and if it had any grasp on the laws of supply and demand, it would know that it would create a bubble and do a disservice to an entire generation of Americans. I see people mad at colleges and banks and capitalism in general, but how is this the fault of capitalism? The market isn't inflating anything. It's a problem of unlimited credit and neither the public sector lenders nor the Dept. of Education would be giving out all these loans if the government didn't guarantee them, deny borrowers bankruptcy protections and give lenders complete latitude to garnish wages until they get their money. \n\nIf you go back several decades, colleges were dirt cheap. I suspect most of your parents that went to university did so for less than you could afford to go to community college. When you get the government involved, you move away from a nice market based higher education system to what we have today. I'm no proponent of social education, but what the US has done is take a capitalist system of education and cronied it up with a bunch of social ideals and what we have is the worst of both worlds. A free market system would be best. A social system would be behind that and the current US system is in the back, being the worst possible permutation that could exist.\n\nI think people are a little quick to pat Germany on the back for their \"free\" education at this juncture. Germans already have a pretty large tax burden and it's only going to increase over the next decade. There are also the perils of students taking too long to graduate, wasting tax payer money. Also, if Germany doesn't limit the pool of applicants to only the qualified and only to the amount of graduates it needs, its going to run into either runaway costs going forward or a \"fairness\" problem where people paying into the system don't get to use it. Social higher education is a huge resource allocation issue and I am curious to see how this is going to shake out.\n\n",
"Many factors that have been pointed out. But a major one is that the US has 316 million people and 21 million college students. 6.6% of the population is in college. Germany has 81 million people and 2.4 million college students, only 2.9% of students are students. The US has about 4600 degree granting post-secondary institutions while Germany has 108 universities (267 accredited higher ed institutions). Their post-secondary system is so much smaller than ours.\n\n*numbers and figures are from quick google searches",
"Also has something to do with the fact that US universities tend to put more emphasis on bells and whistles, like doing fancy graduation ceremonies and building fitness and spa centers to attract students and parents. These things all take extra money. If universities didn't care so much about fancy new buildings and containing all student recreational activities under school-sponsored programs, education would cost much less.",
"So every student in the US starts his life with an ass full of debts? Thats horrible tbh.",
"Taxes. Americans hate the word and hate paying taxes, then complain about how health care and education is expensive.",
"probably because they aren't spending every dime they can get their hands on to bomb countries full of brown people",
"Nations that provide for their students are intelligent and forward thinking. By contrast, America is ignorant, short-sighted and ruled by greedy assholes.\n\nHope that clears things up.",
"Germany actually did introduce university tuitions. Approximately $1k per year, depending on the school.\n\nThere were so many protests that they got rid of it again after 4 years.",
"Politics. Pure politics. The US can more than afford the same.",
"It's all about where a country chooses to spend its money. No different than your personal budget. Some people spend their money on a nice vacation every year because that's what's important to them. Others think a fancy vacation is a waste of money and would rather spend it on a nice car, boat, motorcycle healthcare or whatever. \n\nSame with countries. The U.S. could easily spend less on defense and more on college tuition as they do in Europe. But try running for president or congress on that platform. In most of the U.S. you wouldn't get 20% of the votes. You probably would get laughed at by the other candidates. If you wanted a real laugh suggest raising taxes to pay for college and see how far that gets you.\n\nDifferent countries have different priorities.",
"Because people want it and pay for it through taxes.\n\nCollege use to be free/dirt cheap in the US. But all those people who got education for 100 bucks a year got old and won't vote to for taxes.\n\n\nDid you know the US could pay for everyone to go to college for about 63 billion a year? 63 billion.\n\nElectricity use in the US last year was 3.886 trillion kWh.\nIf we put a 2 cents a kilowatt tax on that, it would pay for college for US students., including text books.",
"Their taxes actually go back to bettering them",
"Stupid people are easier to distract, sell useless things to, and control. The present US culture could never stand with a largely educated population.",
"There is absolutely no reason for any higher education to charge 50k a year. The ivory tower will fall very soon.",
"lol I pay 20% tax and college is free here. Americans pay way more in taxes. Why don't you just admit your system is corrupt and inefficient. ",
"Germany has been through their fascist Nazi phase, we're just getting started. ",
"Also, America is designed to make money, from the store you go to in the morning to the top school in the country. You are a customer, not a citizen. Also the financial factors, but a lot has to do with America not being a great place to be average or poor.",
"Because the USA government are a bunch of corrupt greedy pigs. ",
"Basically they spend their money on things that count .",
"German universities also have a very different enrollment system. I spoke about the differences with a German friend of mine and he said that German universities are much easier to get into compared with universities in the U.S but once your in the university it is alot harder to stay enrolled in the program. You have to constantly meet a certain grade level to stay in the program otherwise you are kicked out of the program and have to join a different university or perhaps switch majors? something of that sort",
"as i understand it from friends who has studied economics in both the US and Ireland is that in the US education could be free but it is treated like a business and is therefore massively over priced",
"German universities don't have to pay head football coach salaries",
"The US government uses the interest on government backed student loans to pay the interest on its debt to the federal reserve. If the government payed for students to go to college they would not be able to offer them loans and use the interest generated by those loans to pay off the interest on it's own loans. \ntl;dr : The US government uses its college students as a credit card.",
"German here. When I was in my final year of high school, our English teacher decided to apply for an exchange program - for one year she went to the US to teach German and we got a teacher from the US in her place to teach us English. \nStill remember how utterly shocked that old American lady was about the state of our school (considered the best in town and leading straight to university) - no sports team, no library, no after-school activities, just lessons until 2-3pm every day. In her high school (middle of nowhere Wisconsin if I remember correctly in a tiny place with less than 5000 people) there were several sports teams, the school had a theatre, a photography lab, a music hall, etc. \n\nGave me the impression that while in Germany (Europe) education is a serious issue, in the US it is more about entertaining the students than anything else.",
"Research wise, at least, American universities are much better than German ones. Look at any world university ranking, and you'll see it's dominated by US schools. \n\nThere is also an ongoing debate about whether the cost of college is really a problem. College is still a very good investment. For the most part, the people you hear about $100k in debt and unemployed are people who chose to attend expensive schools and major in subjects that aren't valuable to employers. Conservatives aren't too keen on subsidizing those decisions. They don't want to take away people's opportunities to pursue the study of something impractical, but they don't want to help pay for it either.",
"Germany is very selective about who gets into college. Therefore,m the colleges don't have to waste a lot of resources on unqualified students. In the U.S. most people who can afford tuition can get a college degree somewhere. They might not be able to do anything with it, but they can get one. I don't believe colleges in Germany have semi-pro sports teams either. ",
"Education is \"expensive\" in the USA for the same reason that healthcare is \"expensive\". The actual service doesn't cost a whole lot. For the cost of the salary of an educator, or doctor, a huge gain to society can be made. Multiple educators and doctors require administration, however again this needn't cost anywhere near what it does cost.\n\nThe problem is the existence of a massive tumorous industry profiteering on top of it. Neither education nor healthcare is provided to Americans at cost. Both are provided through a layer that exists entirely to soak as much money as possible out of the users of the service, and through them, the taxpayers. A significant portion of that money is used to bribe legislators with campaign donations to retain the status quo or make it worse, as with the situation of student loans not being dischargable in bankruptcy. Expect them to try the same with healthcare costs this Congress term.",
"All this stuff about Germany having lower population and less spending is stupid. The US could have free college if it wanted to. That's why it doesn't, because it doesn't want to. Why would a bunch of greedy old white dudes want to give up charging people hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend their institutions out of the goodness of their hearts? They wouldn't. The only way it ever would be free is is if taxes paid for it which would require the law to change which it won't because the government is run by the same greedy old white dudes that run the Universities. ",
"We could afford to do it too. We simply choose not to.",
"Maybe because in Europe public education is not intended to be a bussiness, but a chance for every student.",
"Because colleges love financialy bleeding people dry.",
"Because our education system doesn't exist for education. It exists for profit. ",
"They actually spend their governmental budget on education instead of spending it all on the military. Same goes for healthcare.",
"Short answer, the government will give student loans for that much. ",
"Germany also caps how many students can go to public university. \n\nSome kids are told they can't go, and have to go to expensive private university to further education. ",
"Not everyone in Germany can attend college. They have forced educational tracks so if you happen to do poorly in school while you are 14 for whatever reason, you are forced to attend trade school or other avenue rather than a university.\n",
"Because Europe is into education whereas the United States is in the education business.",
"Yes that's very simple.. the US is not a country, it's a business. \n",
"The way the country chooses to expend their tax money. While USA expends most of their taxes on military, other nations prefer to give health care and education to their people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130915023860/wierdnwildcreatures/images/6/60/Tokoloshe_front.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://np.reddit.com/u/heartsandunicorns",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/Classh0le",
"http://np.reddit.com/r/Shitstatistssay/comments/2ripve/in_these_comments_why_cant_the_us_government_pay/",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/pikk",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/Cockdieselallthetime",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/IMLOwl",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/trenescese",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/TOASTEngineer",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/wral",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/112-Cn",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/thelightbulbison",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/MightierThanThou",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/afrofrycook",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/SLeazyPolarBear",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/qp0n",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/Ruskerdax",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/Subrosian_Smithy",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/auryn0151",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/JoeJoeCoder",
"http://np.reddit.com/u/tessl"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp",
"http://www.businessinsider.com/us-education-spending-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-developed-world-2012-1",
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html",
"http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48630868.pdf",
"http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
aayb2z
|
why did controllers in the 80s and 90s require calibration? how come we dont need to calibrate controllers now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aayb2z/eli5_why_did_controllers_in_the_80s_and_90s/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecw039o",
"ecw15sk"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"The only controllers that required calibration were early analog type controllers (joysticks, steering wheels, etc). In many cases they were also user-adjustable via on-controller (I want to call them rheostats but that may not be right). Every manufacturer made devices slightly different from one another also, so the dynamic range of each device had to be determined before you could use it.\n\nDigital controllers like the joysticks on the Atari 2600 or the original Nintendo D-pad did not require calibration.",
"The way older joysticks were built, the software had no way of knowing where the 'center' was, and how far the joystick could move before it hit max tilt - so it had to measure those values itself. (Similar to taring a scale).\n\nThese days there are little chips inside the joystick which know those values through factory calibration, and will deliver normalized output to the PC."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
bebf5x
|
why was notre-dame not insured?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bebf5x/eli5_why_was_notredame_not_insured/
|
{
"a_id": [
"el4g0ur",
"el4gcos",
"el4gj1u"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Most national states self-insure their buildings. Why should the French government pay someone else to insure all their buildings when they themselves have the ability to pay for restoring those same buildings?",
"Parts of it were, and there was some liability insurance related to the renovations that were being done. The big issue though is that the art/relics inside as well as the windows and building are viewed largely as priceless and you can’t insure something you can’t put an actual value on.",
"In France it is said that \"The State is its own insurance\". As the Cathedral belongs to the state, if I am not mistaken, the only insurance is the state's finances.\n\nThe main insurance related problem when it comes to Notre Dame is that, if the company which was repairing the Cathedral when the fire happened is recognised guilty of the fire, their insurance will be used for further reparations.\n\nWith that said, insurance money might not even suffice, and that's where donations come in handy.\n\n(I'm no insurance professional, nor related to the French government, I just read about that an hour ago, and would gladly like that someone mire knowledgeable corrects me)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3g7qdy
|
why does france deserve veto power in the un?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g7qdy/eli5why_does_france_deserve_veto_power_in_the_un/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctvnkx7",
"ctvnm5s",
"ctvnnc3",
"ctvny0l",
"ctvpam4"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Those countries on with veto power in the UN have it because they required it to join the UN and had enough military or political power that the threat of not joining was worth giving them the veto. ",
"France was a very major world power for a long time, and when the concept of veto power for a few nations was introduced it made sense to put France on the list. It still does in some ways, France is still a globally influential nation because of their contact with former colonies and wide business interests, and France is one of the very few nations to use military force globally (something economic powerhouses like China Japan and Germany have long been reticent to do).",
"Why does anyone deserve veto power in the UN?\n\nIn my opinion, no one does, but at the end of World War 2, the victors of the war got together and decided to make a new international organization that might actually prevent war, unlike the League of Nations, which failed. One of the ways this new UN would prevent war was through a security council. The membership in the security council would rotate except for five permanent members, all the major victorious powers in WW2: the US, UK, USSR, France, and China, and these permanent members would each get a veto. They were the ones who invented this system so of course they gave themselves a lot of power.\n\nThere have always been critics and reformers who say the Security Council shouldn't have permanent members, that the veto power should be abolished, or that new members should be added to the permanent seats. Regardless, the five countries that are permanently in the council have a veto because they were the winners of WW2. \n",
"Because they were one of the winners during WWII. Sort of. \n \nFrankly I'm in favor of letting them have it now just because I don't want the counsel of 5 to change. Ever. ",
"Thank you very much everyone"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ne197
|
the darknet plan.
|
What is it exactly? Does it relate to SOPA?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ne197/eli5_the_darknet_plan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c38dutt",
"c38ejl4",
"c38dutt",
"c38ejl4"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
16,
3
],
"text": [
"It its most basic form, the Darknet is an attempt to set up an internet aside from the internet we know today. Currently, if you want to send an email to Jim, it goes from your computer, through a bunch of ISP devices, to Jim's computer. The darknet seeks to replace all of the ISP devices with devices run by other people on the darknet. So to send an email to Jim, it would go from your computer, to Amy's computer, to Bob's computer, to Cindy's computer... etc. until it gets to Jim. The big drawback to the darknet is that you still need a link to commercial servers, like Google or Facebook, to get to those websites. I'm not sure how they plan to solve that part of the problem. It is partially related to SOPA because, under SOPA, the government and private corporations would be allowed to do lots of things with those ISP devices that we may not like, such as censor certain traffic. If those devices are taken out of the equation, then we don't need to worry about it.",
"A second, free-er internet run by smaller servers. This helps avoid SOPA rules, but has many drawbacks, including lack of commercial support. i.e. Google",
"It its most basic form, the Darknet is an attempt to set up an internet aside from the internet we know today. Currently, if you want to send an email to Jim, it goes from your computer, through a bunch of ISP devices, to Jim's computer. The darknet seeks to replace all of the ISP devices with devices run by other people on the darknet. So to send an email to Jim, it would go from your computer, to Amy's computer, to Bob's computer, to Cindy's computer... etc. until it gets to Jim. The big drawback to the darknet is that you still need a link to commercial servers, like Google or Facebook, to get to those websites. I'm not sure how they plan to solve that part of the problem. It is partially related to SOPA because, under SOPA, the government and private corporations would be allowed to do lots of things with those ISP devices that we may not like, such as censor certain traffic. If those devices are taken out of the equation, then we don't need to worry about it.",
"A second, free-er internet run by smaller servers. This helps avoid SOPA rules, but has many drawbacks, including lack of commercial support. i.e. Google"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3qox0c
|
why do so many older songs end with the music simply fading away?
|
Older as in 60s 70s 80s
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qox0c/eli5_why_do_so_many_older_songs_end_with_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwh1m0p",
"cwh752w",
"cwh760e",
"cwh7ka0",
"cwh8ujt",
"cwhkuzl",
"cwhl1g1"
],
"score": [
97,
429,
23,
5,
8,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"A typical structure for a song is a repeating chorus with varying stanzas between chorus repetitions. This kind of song can go on forever so long as you think of more lyrics. Because of this nature, it would feel strange to end the song abruptly after the end of a chorus; you have to either fade it out (indicating the song can go on) or have a terminal melody (indicating finality), which often depends on the story told in the lyrics.",
"The real answer: rather than come up with a good ending, it's a lot easier to just slowly turn the volume down and hope no one notices",
"For one thing, many of them are being cut short. The actual ending often went on for a few minutes. This was particularly true of prog rock, which often also had long solos cut out of the middle. ",
"I like to think of it as a tool available to you in the studio. You can't really fade a live band out, so songs tend to have a definitive ending at shows/concerts. The studio allows you to express the song in a more specific way. \n\nYou may not want your song to wrap up neatly with a bow. It may be a journey, or a problem unresolved. The fade leaves the listener with the feeling that it goes on, even after you're done listening. Just like some songs don't end on the tonic chord, some don't end definitively at all.\n\nThen again, sometimes the artist is just being made to cut the damn thing short and all they can do is fade it the hell out.",
"dont they do the same thing today?",
"I don't think it's a coincidence that the fade was at its peak during the golden days of FM radio. DJs were motor-mouthed gods then who loved to talk over both the intros and outros of songs. If nothing else, the fade gave them a place to jabber without destroying a vital piece of the song.",
"I'm a musician and have a few songs on our albums that end in fade-outs vs. a hard stop. Every song we wrote had hard stop endings because it didn't feel like the song was done unless it did. Usually you're in the mixing process and you see what a song sounds like when you fade it out vs. taking it to the actual end. In a few cases, it either made more sense or we liked the idea of leaving the song \"hanging\" so that it could be stretched out into a jam or transition at a live show.\n\nThere's also other reasons it can happen, like you need to conform to a certain length without chopping the end of a song off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2q1d8a
|
how some threads, which majorly consist of negative comments, still get upvoted to the front page
|
e.g. [this thread](_URL_0_)
negative is used for a lack of a better word
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q1d8a/eli5how_some_threads_which_majorly_consist_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn1yo8o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because a lot of people look at the image, don't spot the problem, don't look at the comments, then upvote the post."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2pzctu/america_at_the_moment/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
5z64s0
|
why does an ice skater’s kinetic energy increase when she pulls her arms in?
|
My thinking is that since Krot=1/2(MR^2)w^2, as the distance of her arms to the axis decreases her angular velocity increases, and therefore K remains the same.
Why does energy increase and where does the extra energy come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z64s0/eli5why_does_an_ice_skaters_kinetic_energy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"devjsou",
"devknso",
"devkthx",
"devryzb"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"**EDIT: I may be wrong, see other replies instead**\n\nYou're right, kinetic energy does not increase. Nor does angular momentum. Both of these quantities stay the same.\n\nAll that happens is that the skater decreases her moment of inertia. Since angular momentum must remain the same, rotational velocity increases.",
"Kinetic energy does not increase. \n\nWhy do they spin faster? You need to realize that a spinning object will always have its parts moving the fastest at its edge, since the entire object has to spin x times per second and the edge has to cover the most distance every x times per second, since it's distance from the center of rotation, therefore radius, therefore circumference is the largest.\n\nWhen an ice skater pulls their arms in, their arms now have to travel less distance than if they did not, and since kinetic energy (more technically momentum) has to stay the same, their rate of spin increases.",
"Imagine a skater spinning in place on a frictionless rink with angular velocity w and moment of inertia I. Here, she has L = wI and KE = Iw^2 /2. Suppose they draw their arms in, decreasing their moment of intertia to I/2. Since L is conserved, they now have an angular velocity of 2w. They therefore now have KE = (I/2)(2w)^2 /2 , which is twice their original energy, so kinetic energy does increase. The additional energy comes from the work the skater exerted to draw their arms inward.",
"Ahhhhh... many of the other answers are wrong. Source: I went to grad school for physics.\n\nOK, angular momentum stays the same. The moment of intertia does become less (because the arms are pulled in and they now have a smaller value of 'R' -- distance from the axis of rotation). But kinetic energy does increase!\n\nSo where does the kinetic energy come from? From the skater pulling in their arms! If you've ever been on one of [those rides at the carnival where you are spun in a circle](_URL_0_), then you'll know it takes quite a bit of effort to push you head, arms, or legs away from the mat and towards the center of the ride. The force needed to pull in the skater's arms (F) multiplied by the distance the arms are pulled in (d) is the work the skater put into the system (his/her spinning body): W=F\\*d. The work is converted into the additional kinetic energy of the system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8e/74/cc/8e74cc979ad3a18f39838d543bd35121.jpg"
]
] |
|
3yjnkr
|
how does music work? why do notes played in a certain pattern/rhythm sound good to us whereas others do not. when in effect it is just noise?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yjnkr/eli5_how_does_music_work_why_do_notes_played_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cydz16w",
"cydzkbu",
"cye0imd",
"cye0k04",
"cye7x1l",
"cyeb47b",
"cyecpji",
"cyefxyy",
"cyehsu3"
],
"score": [
6,
53,
8,
22,
4,
2,
5,
2,
16
],
"text": [
"Most music has a beat somewhat similar to the human heartbeat speed. However, why exactly music can affect our emotions so much is still up for debate. \n\nUsing the heartbeat speed of other species, people have made music for monkeys, [cats](_URL_0_), and other animals that they seem to appreciate just like how humans appreciate human music. ",
"As Heliopteryx says, exactly why we like it is much up for debate, but what I can say now is that music isn't actually just noise. Often they have a somewhat predictable beat as well as well matched harmonies; octaves are 1:2 ratios and 5ths, 2:3 etc. If you randomly generated noises, there is always a chance that it'll end up like our music, but it is HIGHLY unlikely, whereas if I ask a random person to write us a music, you can be very certain (like 95% or so!) that they'll have what many other music has: beats and harmonies.\n\nExactly why these things make us like it is very much in debate, but my theory is that as an experience, we like things that are predictable enough not to be completely out of the world (random noise doesn't satisfy this) but not so predictable as to be boring (a clock noise is boring). This criteria seem to work for most experience including music, and it seems to be the right mix is what's necessary for us to 'like' them. ",
"Follow up question, how much of our musical taste is influenced by 'conditioning' (i.e. being brought up listening/exposed to a particular genre)?",
"To add to what the others said, a lot of it is also what we are used to. Listen to some music played in [japanese Noh theater](_URL_0_) or [classical indian music](_URL_1_) that uses different intervals and rhythms than we do, it sounds quite weird at first.\n\nAlso, the [notes that we use nowadays](_URL_2_) (i.e. the keys that exist on a keyboard for example) exist only for about 300 years. IIRC people had to get used to that one too and didn't think it sounded good at first.\n\nAnd, last but not least, there is [experimental noise music](_URL_3_), where any perceivable melody or rhythm has ceased to exist altogether, and there are people who think it sounds good. Me, for example. I grew into it over the years and can listen to this stuff while working and find it quite relaxing while many other music has become unbearably boring to me.",
"At is simplest and most profound level, music is nothing more than the beauty of tension being set up and resolved, again and again, most of the time we don't realise it consciously, but feel that tension-resolution as a beautiful melody, chord progression etc",
"For the same reason we like visual art. I once heard a wise man say \"Art is how we decorate space, music is how we decorate time.\"",
"Music is a lot like language in the sense that it obeys a structure, follows specific patterns (time signatures, harmonics, melodic movements, etc), and either obeys or violates expectations we have of it. \n\nMost of the music we enjoy is because it obeys our preconceived notions of what a song ought to be, where it goes, and how it ends. \n\nWhen we can figure out the pattern, or when the pattern of a song is readily accessible, we tend to like it almost immediately, due to a shot of dopamine reinforcing the activity. \nOur brains will dislike any sort of pattern it cannot figure out because it doesn't get the dopamine shot it feels as though it deserves. This makes us irrationally upset. \n\nThere was a composer who traveled to France with his piece in the 1800s. The audience was so repulsed by it, they rioted in the streets and lit shit on fire. Same composer returned one year later with the same piece and it was well-received. As soon as your brain \"gets it,\" it automatically becomes an enjoyable and rewarding experience. \n\nThe more \"experimental\" music you listen to, the larger your reference database is, the more able you are to appreciate and recognize patterns in different types of music. \n\nI listened to an album I hated for about a month before it finally clicked. Now it's one of my favorite albums. Shits weird.",
"We like sensing patterns and symmetry in nature because it alerts us to important things like friends, food, or predators. When our ancestors heard an ordered beat it would probably originate from footsteps or a human tool. Also language has melodic qualities that music imitates",
"Music Theory Professor here:\n\nOur perception of music is for the most part based on relationships of pitches. That is to say that we may alter the frequencies either up or down, but as long as the entire \"piece\" is altered by the same amount its relative context remains intact. This is sometimes known as the \"happy birthday\" effect, where the birthday song does not seem to have any specific key and often people sing it simultaneously on different keys, keeping the INTERVALS (relationship between notes and the tonic, more on that below) correct. The result is an atonal (not specific to a particular pitch) recognizable tune.\n\nNow the BEAUTY of music comes from a phenomena that is embedded into our understanding of acoustics for many centuries. In western civilization we are deeply immersed in tonality. The notion that music has a particular key. For example: Don't Stop Believing is written for the most part in E major. Which means that while that song is playing, notes within that scale (E, F#, G#, A, B, C# and D#) will sound as part of the music and harmonious. The desirable effect that makes music beautiful and even genius is actually a very simple concept of resolving conflicting harmonies. These resolution tendencies always come back \"home\"\n\nI will (try to) explain more simply. Please try to keep an open mind to understand the complex analogies. Let's picture a particular song or piece as a journey. The \"key\" of a piece, we will name our \"home\" or \"home key\". There are a lot of songs that do not venture very far from \"home\", these simplistic songs only use a few chords. Like the four-chord-song. They remain within the vicinity of your house and because of that, it is pleasing to listen to because it is very familiar, we can relate and follow along, simply. The further outside of your home you go, you venture into deeper parts of your journey. When you leave your \"home\" you are no longer in the key but still close enough where you can return \"home\" much like music often returns to the original key and that resolve is satisfying to hear, very pleasant. The further away from home you get, the more interesting your overall resolution to your house is.\n\nIn the study of genius, many of the greats (Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Couperin, Lizt, etc) many times you find that the \"journey\" that they take often becomes so far away from the \"home\" key that upon the return, the \"home\" key is altered in some way. Almost as if though the journey itself changed your perception of what your home was all about. This is commonly noted in the famous \"Ode to Joy\" which is the ending (in D MAJOR) to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in D MINOR. \n\nSorry, I'm not a professional writer so sometimes it's difficult to express thoughts on music with words, so if you have any more questions, just reply I'll try to get to all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cats-dont-like-human-music-play-instead/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hI8edPXNS0",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mwp9Aw96hU",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_temperament",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvTMOeq6ADE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
v7vb2
|
in games sniping works by putting the crosshair over the enemy and pulling the trigger. how does it work in real life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/v7vb2/eli5_in_games_sniping_works_by_putting_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c523gn0",
"c52ckm1"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, following the standard disclaimer about me not being a sniper, in real life sniping is 'almost' the same - but with real life differences. A few, off the top of my head, are:\n\n* Adjustment for distance. The farther away you target is (and depending on the type of bullet you are using), you have to adjust your aim for height lost due to gravity. Although this is negligible for smaller distances, but can be upto 5/6 inches for shots in the ranges of 800+ yards (difference between headshot and injure-shot).\n\n* Adjustment for wind. Again, for larger distances, the aim has to be adjusted for wind drift. \n\n* Bullet-type. In traditional guns, any bullet - even a round pellet - can kill/injure, sniper bullets are shaped to 'glide', i.e. reduce drag and increase range without drifting (much). Also, the impact velocity (force at which it will hit the target) has to be considered, changing the bullet type. Do we need an explosion on impact or penetration? Armored target or moving target? and so forth.\n\n* Lastly, and most glaringly, most professional snipers use a spotter - a 'helper' dedicated to ranging the target, doing windspeed/drift calculations and helping the sniper by keeping an eye on all non-direct activities that the sniper needs to be aware of before/while taking a shot.\n\nAnd then you aim and shoot!",
"Try _URL_0_ . This is the closest thing you'll find short of taking an actual rifle out and shooting it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.shooterready.com/lrs.html"
]
] |
||
5hlgr4
|
why would a software require the use of ie instead of other browsers?
|
My company just started a new web based accounting and inventory software that requires we use IE. Certain functions of the software aren't available in other browsers. ELI5 please.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hlgr4/eli5_why_would_a_software_require_the_use_of_ie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db11mbg",
"db1203o"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Web browsers read code (usually HTML, CSS, and JavaScript for web applications) and displays it for you. Different web browsers are produced by different organizations and are slightly different when it comes to reading and executing code. Even something pretty universal like HTML will be read and executed in slightly different ways. Web developers can probably tell you more about having to modify their code to make it work in different browsers.\n\nThe software your company uses probably has sections of code that only IE knows how to interpret, and it might be too specialized of a case for other browser developers to bother with. Many companies use IE because they have deals or contracts with Microsoft, and Microsoft can even modify the browser to work for whatever special case they need. Developers of other browsers focus more on the general public.",
"As a Web developer I can confirm that that is bang on. Basically you'll end up developing with a particular browser and the time and development cost of checking every little thing after an update on many different browsers is insane. That's why you'll see something to the effect of \"defo works on x, for everywhere else, there's good luck\" on a lot of Web based apps."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ak3v9d
|
how can a country estimate how many illegal immigrants there are within the country, and how can they estimate how much money illegal immigrants cost the country every year?
|
This is mainly a USA question. I see statistics about this all the time and I’m genuinely curious how we are able to calculate and estimate those numbers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ak3v9d/eli5_how_can_a_country_estimate_how_many_illegal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ef1hm7k",
"ef1or5i",
"ef1pwis",
"ef34bl0"
],
"score": [
112,
3,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"The US Government estimates the number of illegal immigrants based on data from the US Census and Department of Homeland Security. \n\nEvery year the US Census conducts a mini census called the American Community Survey which mails out census forms to about 3.5 million families. These forms don't ask for citizenship status, but do ask whether you are domestic or foreign born. They then take this number and modify it a bit to account for people who don't respond and a few other factors, after which they have a decent estimate for the total foreign born population in the US.\n\nThey then take that number of total foreign born individuals in the US and subtract it from DHS data on the number of legal immigrants who are still in the country. This difference between those two numbers produces an estimate for the number of illegal immigrants in the country.\n\nThe US government doesn't estimate the cost of illegal immigrants (although I think they might have done so once, a few decades ago, they don't modernly). Rather, when you see estimates those come from political action groups or researchers.\n\nGroups in that category can estimate the costs however they want, and frequently do. However, a reasonable way that costs *could* be calculated is by using the known marginal costs of public services. For example, if you know that on average it costs a city $100 per person, per year for public services (such as police, fire, education and infrastructure maintenance) and you know that there are 1 million illegal immigrants in the country, then you can estimate the cost of those immigrants as being $100 million. \n\nBut even if you do it like that its still difficult for different estimates to come to the same number because you have to determine what public services you count, as well as determining overall usage rates, as illegal immigrants tend to \"use\" such services at different rates than legal immigrants. IE, illegal immigrants tend to be incarcerated more often than legal immigrants while using fewer social services, but the actual rates of that are controversial.\n\nAnd again, private groups can estimate costs however they want. Most groups doing such estimates are political, and the more political the estimator, the more likely that the estimate has been manipulated to fit their agenda - and concern over political bias, or the perception of it, is why the US government doesn't attempt to estimate costs.",
"It's an educated guess. Survey random populations, extrapolate to generalized population. Cost is even more nebulous. You can add or remove parameters. For example, someone could assume that black market laborers work for less than legit laborers. The displaced legit laborers can get government assistance, or might lose buying power, so you make guesses as to the impact.\n\nBottom line, when anyone quotes the estimated population, it's probably reasonably close. The math and methodology can be verified. \n\nThe cost is another thing. That will depend on what the people dosing the survey deem as costs, and it is entirely unverifiable. \n\nThere is typically a very wide margin of error. Those who wish to maximize the supposed impact will choose the extreme end of the possibilities as will those who wish too counter them. ",
"Majority of illegals in the US are people who came to the country legally on visas and then stayed and disappeared once their visas expired. With that information of who stayed it's very easy get a starting number. Then you factor in lots of other variables and you get a more accurate number.\n",
"They pay a lot of taxes too which actually counts as revenue for the country, not to mention the labor that gets done"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5lkwes
|
how come full siblings share only 50% genetic with each other and not 100% since they both have the same parents?
|
Someone told me that full siblings with the same parents only share 50% genetic material, but why wouldn't it be 100% since they both have the same parents and are both getting 50% from the same mom and 50% from the same dad? Isn't it true that they're getting 100% of the same amount of DNA from the same genetic source (their parents)? What makes it only 50%??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lkwes/eli5_how_come_full_siblings_share_only_50_genetic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbwgaci",
"dbwgb7e",
"dbwgcvp",
"dbwnx9l",
"dbwwcxd"
],
"score": [
38,
14,
20,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"During conception you get 50% of your genes from your father and 50% from your mother. But you still have the same number of genes so there is 50% of the genes from each parent you do not get. Your siblings will have the same distribution of genes. So of the 50% of the genes you get from each parent your sibling will have on average 50% of them and 50% of the genes your parents have not given you. So you end up sharing 50% of your genes with your sibling. For instance your dad have a gene for developing testicles which makes you into a man, however there is still a 50% chance that this trait is the same in your sibling then in you.\n\nTo better visualize how this works. You take a deck of cards and divide it into red and black suits. This represents the genes of your parents. Now on random chose 13 cards at random from each of those decks numbered 2 to A. The new deck will have equally many black and red suits. This represents your genes. Now repeat the task with another deck of cards and you end up with a deck for your sibling. Since you picked the cards at random you now share half the cards in the decks.",
" > > Isn't it true that they're getting 100% of the same amount of DNA from the same genetic source (their parents)?\n\nno humans have 46 chromosomes , and get 23 from each parent. your parents each have 46 chromosomes. so they give their kids only half of their chromosomes. chances are you aren't going to get the exact same 23 from both parents as your siblings get since the choice is random\n",
"You get around 50% of each parent's genes. Which genes you get from which parent is random. \n\nSo a sibling probably won't get the same combination of genes you do. About half will be the same ones you got, and about half will be from the other parent.",
"There's also crossing over to consider. The 46 chromosomes in a human are arranged in pairs. During the process where cells become sperm or egg (meiosis) the legs of the pairs kind of wrap around each other and trade little pieces of genetic material. This is called crossing over, it ensures diversity. It's another reason why siblings look different even though the genetic material comes from the same source. Even if you got the same chromosomes from each parent as your siblings, the chromosomes themselves would be different.\n\nNo two egg or sperm are exactly alike, not even in the case of identical twins. That happens when a fertilized egg splits into two embryos during early development.\n\nI mean...statistically speaking they could be, but like someone earlier said, the chances are astronomical. \n\n",
"My husband comes from a small town where they have something called \"double cousins\". This means two siblings marry two siblings, and the resulting offspring are genetically closer than usual cousins. \n\nFor example: Bob's cousin is George. Bob's father is George's father's brother, and Bob's mother is George's mother's sister. Does this make them as genetically close as siblings? I'm never sure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
450t66
|
why infections will cause red lines in the skin?
|
For example, I had a blister on my toe while I was on maneuvers for the Army. It popped, got infected, and then I had a red line starting at the blister and heading up my foot. I asked the PA I saw about it if it was an inflammatory response, but she said no and hurriedly prescribed me antibiotics and left. So if it's not inflammation, what is it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/450t66/eli5_why_infections_will_cause_red_lines_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czuenxd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing it was lymphangitis, which is an infection in the lymphatic system, that probably began in the lymphatic channels adjacent to your wound. If not treated the infection may spread to your blood causing sepsis, which is serious bad news. There are other complications that can happen as well, none of them things you want to have happen in your body. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
dq5hxd
|
how do data companies like verizon work? where does the data come from? (sorry if it seems stupid, just something i've been wondering)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dq5hxd/eli5_how_do_data_companies_like_verizon_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f60ptpi",
"f60uqa5"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"ELI5: There's the pipes, the water, and the water tanks\n\nUsers (People, Companies, organizations, educational systems, governments, etc etc) produce the water\n\nVerizon is in the business of providing the pipes that move the water wirelessly. Their network ties into the bigger network that's primarily made of fiber runs and server farms. The internet is basically pipes between water tanks and we all contribute to the water in the system. Verizon has water tanks too, but not like the big boys.\n\nThe water tanks are the servers that hold the data. Governments, and the big tech companies all the way down to personal servers. \n\n(Resisted the urge to say \"series of tubes\")",
"There are huge cables that carry data across great distances, called the internet backbone. Companies that own these cables charge internet and mobile phone providers to access them, and they, in turn, charge you for the service.\n\nVerizon is a backbone provider, an internet service provider, and a mobile service provider, in some cases they may be serving all three roles for a given consumer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3xq47b
|
why do fast food and casual dining restaurants give you (much) smaller cups when you ask for water?
|
Why not just fill up a soda cup with water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xq47b/eli5_why_do_fast_food_and_casual_dining/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy6rhgf"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"To differentiate between paid drink customers who should be taking soda & non-paid who should not, to make it less convenient by making get up for refills more often, and because smaller cups are cheaper when giving out for free."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
f2uluk
|
what is reverse osmosis and why is it important for consumable water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f2uluk/eli5_what_is_reverse_osmosis_and_why_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhett2y",
"fheue3e",
"fheuh1o"
],
"score": [
14,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Water resources engineer here. It’s a filtering process that can remove dissolved compounds such as salt (desalination plants) that requires quite a bit of water pressure and has a higher ratio waste stream (high ratio of incoming water doesn’t end up as treated water) so is more expensive than most other water treatment methods.",
"Pressurize sea water (or other non-pure water) through a filter membrane. The membrane has pores so small than minerals and salt ions can’t pass through. Microbes, being very much larger than ions, will definitely be removed.\n\nOnly water molecules are small enough to pass through the membrane, everything else is trapped behind the membrane. Multiple layers of membranes in sequence can produce very pure water.\n\nReverse osmosis is expansive compared to other sources of water (groundwater from aquifers, reservoirs etc). It also takes a large input of water to produce a small amount of pure water, the remaining is discarded as brine.\n\nMost home “reverse-osmosis” kits are scams, people don’t know the difference between RO membranes and cheap carbon filters.",
"*technically* there is no such thing as \"reverse osmosis\" there is just osmosis. Osmosis is the migration of molecules across a membrane. The classic example in high school chemistry class uses salt water on one side and fresh water on the other. Salt will migrate from the salt side to fresh until there is an equal amount of salt on either side. What molecules will make it through the membrane depends on the size of the pores in the membrane.\n\nBut that example uses equal hydraulic pressure on each side while osmosis actually depends on a concept called \"partial pressure\". So-called reverse osmosis works by having the same source water on both sides of the membrane but at different hydraulic pressures. By putting the feed water at a higher pressure, salt (or other contaminants) will migrate to the lower pressure side. The higher pressure difference you use, the greater the difference in dissolved minerals you can achieve. (up to a point) \n\nThis process is pretty cheap to run and the membranes last longer than typical filter media. The downside is that it is somewhat wasteful of water. For salt removal systems, you end up with a lot of fresh water, but also a fair bit of salt brine water that needs to be disposed of. For home or retail water sales applications, the brine would be sent to the sewer system. For municipal level systems, waste water is usually sent back to the original water source."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
akrqpj
|
can someone explain to me what the problem with the northern ireland backstop?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/akrqpj/eli5_can_someone_explain_to_me_what_the_problem/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ef7bzls"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'll try and go through it step-by-step so you can see the logic.\n\nThe EU is a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreements, which brought (relative) peace to Northern Ireland. These agreements guarantee a high degree of freedom of movement for people, goods and services between the Republic and Northern Ireland.\n\nThe Agreements were written on the assumption that the UK and Republic would be part of the EU, so this isn't a problem.\n\nHowever if the UK leaves the EU, this freedom of movement can be limited, by either side.\n\nThe EU thus wants to ensure that any deal ensures the right level of freedom of movement - \"no hard border\" - to meet the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. This also implies some harmonisation when it comes to standards, tariffs, etc.. The EU sees this as its duty as a guarantor of the peace deal. You could argue it can also be a useful negotiating tactic.\n\nThis could be met by a comprehensive, long-term deal - for example, the UK remaining part of the customs union. However that's not what has been negotiated. The UK and EU have agreed what's essentially a short-term deal.\n\nTo ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is maintained over the long-term, the EU has insisted on a \"backstop\" as part of the deal. If the UK and EU can't come to some other agreement to maintain freedom of movement, the backstop kicks in and forces it upon us.\n\nThe UK government decided that they can't agree to the deal with the EU putting Northern Ireland in a different situation to the rest of the UK. So no customs controls or anything like that between NI and the rest of the country. That means the terms of the backstop have to apply to the whole of the UK.\n\nWhich in turn means that the whole of the UK is committed to a high degree of freedom of movement between the UK and the EU and loses some control over standards, tariffs, etc.. This, of course, is something lots of people don't want.\n\nSome people believe that the inability to get out of the backstop is intolerable for the UK, and gives the EU far too much leverage in negotiations. If we don't agree to what the EU wants, they'll just say \"ok then, backstop.\" But the backstop *has* to be long-term and hard to get out of or there's not much point to it!\n\nThe government and EU have been trying to get round this by making political declarations that nobody actually wants to use the backstop and they'll make every effort possible not to use it. Meanwhile, the European Research Group say they have other solutions for the border issue which can solve the problem, but not many people take them seriously.\n\nDoes that make sense?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
jf26e
|
what is drm and why is it so bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jf26e/eli5_what_is_drm_and_why_is_it_so_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2bkdoj",
"c2bkora",
"c2bm7ed",
"c2bmfc6",
"c2bmgam",
"c2bmmgk",
"c2bnrad",
"c2bnuxz",
"c2bkdoj",
"c2bkora",
"c2bm7ed",
"c2bmfc6",
"c2bmgam",
"c2bmmgk",
"c2bnrad",
"c2bnuxz"
],
"score": [
112,
4,
2,
7,
2,
5,
2,
2,
112,
4,
2,
7,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"DRM is the fancy name for what software, music, and movie producers do with their media to prevent people from illegally copying and pirating their things. \n\nThere's 2 reasons why it's bad: First of all, most of the time it doesn't actually serve its purpose. As everyone can see, music, movie, and software piracy still exists and it's not stopping anytime soon. Hackers always find out new ways to bypass whatever security measures corporations use. It has always been the case since forever.\n\nThe second reason is the most important: It only hurts the legal users. DRM often restricts which devices you can play your media on, how you can and can't use it, etc. Many games for example require you to be connected to the internet to play even if you want to use single player, the songs you buy in iTunes can't be used on an mp3 player that isn't an iPod, and so on. Not only is this bothersome, it doesn't even affect pirates. When you download something illegally, all of these silly restrictions are stripped out, and you have complete freedom. \n\nSo people who buy things legally have to abide by these bad rules while pirates get their stuff for free, AND can do what they want. It obviously isn't fair.",
"Most of the time it works as it's supposed to, doesn't get in the way, and doesn't matter to the user. It's bad because it usually doesn't stop bad people misusing or stealing the content or game. All it does is stop paying customers from enjoying the product. Example I buy a DRM protected music track i can only listen to on my computer can't then listen to it on my portable audio player; the DRM has stopped me making fair use of the music i bought.",
"It is copy protection that results in pirates not only still getting the product for free, but their version is better than what paying users get, since the copy protection is often pointlessly annoying.",
"The technology: DRM (\"Digital Rights Management\") technologically enforces when and how you can use content (games, music, video, possibly other?). Once common way is to encrypt or use a file format that only \"official\" applications know how to work with. (Like iTunes.) These applications won't allow you to copy the file or change its format, for instance. Another way is to use some sort of registration process and check, online, whether the user trying to use the content is \"registered\" to use it.\n\nWhy it's bad: DRM is an extra barrier/layer around content, which causes inefficiencies and limitations even if it works perfectly as planned. For example, iTunes-encoded music files aren't available in high definition as audiophiles would prefer. DRM movies/games take up more memory and require more time to decode and use. Sometimes these restrictions require that you have Internet access to be able to use them, which can pose a big problem for some.\n\nThese can cause annoyances for legitimate users. Some are small: for example, DVDs that don't allow you to skip the first 5 minutes and just go to the menu. Others are bigger. For example, suppose you forget your password to your online profile for a game (or even a company's entire series of games). Even if you've already bought and paid for that game and physically own the disc, you have no way to access and play the game. (Starcraft II, for example, won't allow you to create multiple accounts, so if you can't access your first account, you can't play at all.) You have to either re-purchase the game or try to go through customer service. Similarly, if your hard drive crashes and you lose a DRM-managed file, you may have no way to re-acquire it. You have much less control.\n\nFor another example: I cannot use Netflix, because it employs a version of DRM on its movies that is incompatible with Linux, meaning that I cannot play Netflix movies on my Linux machine. (Note: Netflix is apparently fixing this soon.) If the movies were available in any standard format, this would not be a problem. And even for people who do have compatible machines, they have to make sure they have the correct version of Microsoft Silverlight installed, and so on. DRM introduces extra hurdles.\n\nDRM has a history of causing problems of this sort or worse. For example, see the [Sony copy-protection rootkit scandal](_URL_1_). Basically, music CDs sold by Sony were making harmful changes to users' computers without their knowledge or consent, causing faulty behavior and introducing security risks. You would just pop the CD into your computer, and it made these basic, broad changes without even telling you. This was all done in the name of DRM and preventing piracy, but thousands of people were negatively affected.\n\nHowever, DRM does not seem to do a very good job at stopping pirating (illegal copying of copyrighted material). Usually, since it is simply a form of software, clever pirates find ways to \"reverse-engineer\" the protections and bypass them. So it's not clear that DRM has even helped in the way it was intended to.\n\nMost of all, DRM is intuitively bad to many people because it introduces artificial barriers -- it makes tasks harder than they have to be. Imagine if there was a police checkpoint at every highway on-ramp that forced you to stop and show your license, but that it was relatively easy for people to produce fake driver's licenses that passed the test. This is how many people view DRM -- a useless hassle. Lots of time and money has gone into both creating DRM and circumventing it. Many people view this time and money as wasted effort. Learn more: [Defective By Design](_URL_0_).\n\nNote: There are also many arguments against copyright law as it currently exists in America, and of course copyright law is at the heart of DRM, but we can skip that debate for now, I think.",
"I think the people have missed a little bit of the answer and that's *why*.\n\nIn the \"good old days\", everything was solid stuff. Lets say, you want a new lawnmower. So, you go to the lawnmower shop and buy one. Now, you have a lawnmower, the store owner has your money, but - here's the important part - the store owner doesn't have a lawn mower any more.\n\nTake this into the movies world. Initially there wasn't a problem, because copying movies from film wasn't something people could really do. Then, video tapes came out. The movie industry was upset because it became pretty easy for people to copy movies. Still, it wasn't too bad because tapes were pretty expensive, you needed a friend with the movie to copy from, the quality of the movie was a little worse every time it was copied, and it was slow since you needed to play the movie through to copy it.\n\nFast forward to current day, and this is a horrible situation for the movie industry. All the problems with copying tapes are gone. It's fast, the quality is more or less perfect, and you don't need to have a friend with the movie.\n\nAll the same problems are the same with anything that can live on your computer, like games. Since it isn't anything physical, you can make perfect copies for more or less no cost.\n\nNow, if you have a choice of buying something for money, or getting it for free, which would you choose? It seems that an awful lot of people go down the \"I'll have it for free\" path. The name \"pirate\" has been given to people to choose to pay nothing for a copy, when they really should have paid for it.\n\nThis brings us to the \"What is DRM?\" question. Digital Rights Management (\"DRM\") is an attempt to bring the restrictions of the physical world onto movies and games. It's the people who make and sell the movies, games and computer software trying to make it so that you can't make copies; or that when you sell your copy, then you won't have a copy anymore. In a nutshell the idea is that for every sale, there should only be one copy out there in the world.\n\nSounds reasonable, right?\n\nWell, the problem for buyers is that DRM doesn't always work the way we would want. Sometimes the techniques they use mean that people who legitimately paid for something can't use it the way they wanted. For example, sometimes you might not be able to play a DVD on your DVD player, because the DRM thinks you're trying to copy it. Sometimes the game you bought might say that someone is already using \"your copy\" of it.\n\nMeanwhile, there are people out there taking the DRM out of these products and making them available for free.\n\nSo, there's a massive problem: sometimes people make illegal copies because the DRM has been taken out and therefore it simply works better, but at the same time the people selling movies and games see all the pirates out there and think that they need to make DRM even more restrictive since, so far, it isn't working\n",
"\"DRM\", or Digital Rights Management, is an umbrella term for any software which is used to enforce the rights an intellectual property (IP) owner has over the use of the IP. Generally, this means providing selective access to that IP to specific parties who have met all the conditions required by the IP holder for its use.\n\nThe IP could be anything; games, music, movies or even pictures, printer cartridge controller software, car computer software, Word documents and so on.\n\nAs long as the IP is in some sort of digital form, the IP owner can use DRM of some sort to more closely control under what circumstances the IP can be used.\n\nThe #1 usage of DRM is to prevent piracy of digital media content. In this scenario, the IP owner uses DRM to restrict someone's access to certain content unless the IP owner (or their authorized agent) has approved their access to it (usually after that person has paid the asking price for it.)\n\nPreventing piracy is not the only use case for DRM, however. Another use case would be to maintain confidentiality; a company might use DRM on a document that allows the intended recipient to read the document on his or her computer, but prevents it from being printed or copied to a flash drive.\n\nDRM is also used to enable new business models and ways of selling content. A good example of this is online movie rentals, where DRM is used to enforce a 24 or 48-hour time limit on viewing, but the limit only kicks in after the \"Play\" button is pressed.\n\nSo why is DRM so bad? Short answer (and the answer that will guarantee this gets downvoted to oblivion): it isn't. It is neither good nor bad. It's a tool, just like a knife; you can use it to cut meat for your dinner, or you can use it to chop someone's head off.\n\nThe only objective measure of DRM is its effectiveness at achieving the goals it was developed for, which are generally more complex and nuanced than many assume. However, a key goal is nearly always to make it as difficult as possible for unauthorized users to access the content while making it as easy as possible for legitimate users to access the content. The contradictory nature of those goals means it's always a delicate balancing act to design a truly effective DRM system.\n\nAnother problem DRM has is that ultimately, someone somewhere has to be able to access the content it is being used to protect. That means somebody somewhere has all the information required to circumvent the DRM--because it must necessarily be circumvented in order to provide access to the content. The danger is, that somebody will have the tenacity, skill and resources to not only circumvent the DRM, but render it completely ineffective.",
"Here's a car metaphor:\n\n* You buy an iCar. You can never change the wheels or anything else.\n\n* You buy iBenzine. It only works in iCars.\n\n* You buy a car from Steam. It is parked at the Steam garage, you can only get new tires at the Steam garage and if you buy benzine and your check bounces they will take away your entire car.\n\n* You buy a car from Activision. It only works as long as you have good radio reception. If you go into a tunnel, go on vacation or their broadcasting system fails, you can't drive your car.\n\n* You buy a car with a Secucar security system. Even though you open the door with your key, sometimes it won't let you start the car.\n\nFed up with this shit, you get a free car from PirateCar. You can park it anywhere you want, change anything you want, drive anywhere you want and you never have problems starting the car.",
"Here's a comic strip that sort of explains things:\n\n_URL_0_",
"DRM is the fancy name for what software, music, and movie producers do with their media to prevent people from illegally copying and pirating their things. \n\nThere's 2 reasons why it's bad: First of all, most of the time it doesn't actually serve its purpose. As everyone can see, music, movie, and software piracy still exists and it's not stopping anytime soon. Hackers always find out new ways to bypass whatever security measures corporations use. It has always been the case since forever.\n\nThe second reason is the most important: It only hurts the legal users. DRM often restricts which devices you can play your media on, how you can and can't use it, etc. Many games for example require you to be connected to the internet to play even if you want to use single player, the songs you buy in iTunes can't be used on an mp3 player that isn't an iPod, and so on. Not only is this bothersome, it doesn't even affect pirates. When you download something illegally, all of these silly restrictions are stripped out, and you have complete freedom. \n\nSo people who buy things legally have to abide by these bad rules while pirates get their stuff for free, AND can do what they want. It obviously isn't fair.",
"Most of the time it works as it's supposed to, doesn't get in the way, and doesn't matter to the user. It's bad because it usually doesn't stop bad people misusing or stealing the content or game. All it does is stop paying customers from enjoying the product. Example I buy a DRM protected music track i can only listen to on my computer can't then listen to it on my portable audio player; the DRM has stopped me making fair use of the music i bought.",
"It is copy protection that results in pirates not only still getting the product for free, but their version is better than what paying users get, since the copy protection is often pointlessly annoying.",
"The technology: DRM (\"Digital Rights Management\") technologically enforces when and how you can use content (games, music, video, possibly other?). Once common way is to encrypt or use a file format that only \"official\" applications know how to work with. (Like iTunes.) These applications won't allow you to copy the file or change its format, for instance. Another way is to use some sort of registration process and check, online, whether the user trying to use the content is \"registered\" to use it.\n\nWhy it's bad: DRM is an extra barrier/layer around content, which causes inefficiencies and limitations even if it works perfectly as planned. For example, iTunes-encoded music files aren't available in high definition as audiophiles would prefer. DRM movies/games take up more memory and require more time to decode and use. Sometimes these restrictions require that you have Internet access to be able to use them, which can pose a big problem for some.\n\nThese can cause annoyances for legitimate users. Some are small: for example, DVDs that don't allow you to skip the first 5 minutes and just go to the menu. Others are bigger. For example, suppose you forget your password to your online profile for a game (or even a company's entire series of games). Even if you've already bought and paid for that game and physically own the disc, you have no way to access and play the game. (Starcraft II, for example, won't allow you to create multiple accounts, so if you can't access your first account, you can't play at all.) You have to either re-purchase the game or try to go through customer service. Similarly, if your hard drive crashes and you lose a DRM-managed file, you may have no way to re-acquire it. You have much less control.\n\nFor another example: I cannot use Netflix, because it employs a version of DRM on its movies that is incompatible with Linux, meaning that I cannot play Netflix movies on my Linux machine. (Note: Netflix is apparently fixing this soon.) If the movies were available in any standard format, this would not be a problem. And even for people who do have compatible machines, they have to make sure they have the correct version of Microsoft Silverlight installed, and so on. DRM introduces extra hurdles.\n\nDRM has a history of causing problems of this sort or worse. For example, see the [Sony copy-protection rootkit scandal](_URL_1_). Basically, music CDs sold by Sony were making harmful changes to users' computers without their knowledge or consent, causing faulty behavior and introducing security risks. You would just pop the CD into your computer, and it made these basic, broad changes without even telling you. This was all done in the name of DRM and preventing piracy, but thousands of people were negatively affected.\n\nHowever, DRM does not seem to do a very good job at stopping pirating (illegal copying of copyrighted material). Usually, since it is simply a form of software, clever pirates find ways to \"reverse-engineer\" the protections and bypass them. So it's not clear that DRM has even helped in the way it was intended to.\n\nMost of all, DRM is intuitively bad to many people because it introduces artificial barriers -- it makes tasks harder than they have to be. Imagine if there was a police checkpoint at every highway on-ramp that forced you to stop and show your license, but that it was relatively easy for people to produce fake driver's licenses that passed the test. This is how many people view DRM -- a useless hassle. Lots of time and money has gone into both creating DRM and circumventing it. Many people view this time and money as wasted effort. Learn more: [Defective By Design](_URL_0_).\n\nNote: There are also many arguments against copyright law as it currently exists in America, and of course copyright law is at the heart of DRM, but we can skip that debate for now, I think.",
"I think the people have missed a little bit of the answer and that's *why*.\n\nIn the \"good old days\", everything was solid stuff. Lets say, you want a new lawnmower. So, you go to the lawnmower shop and buy one. Now, you have a lawnmower, the store owner has your money, but - here's the important part - the store owner doesn't have a lawn mower any more.\n\nTake this into the movies world. Initially there wasn't a problem, because copying movies from film wasn't something people could really do. Then, video tapes came out. The movie industry was upset because it became pretty easy for people to copy movies. Still, it wasn't too bad because tapes were pretty expensive, you needed a friend with the movie to copy from, the quality of the movie was a little worse every time it was copied, and it was slow since you needed to play the movie through to copy it.\n\nFast forward to current day, and this is a horrible situation for the movie industry. All the problems with copying tapes are gone. It's fast, the quality is more or less perfect, and you don't need to have a friend with the movie.\n\nAll the same problems are the same with anything that can live on your computer, like games. Since it isn't anything physical, you can make perfect copies for more or less no cost.\n\nNow, if you have a choice of buying something for money, or getting it for free, which would you choose? It seems that an awful lot of people go down the \"I'll have it for free\" path. The name \"pirate\" has been given to people to choose to pay nothing for a copy, when they really should have paid for it.\n\nThis brings us to the \"What is DRM?\" question. Digital Rights Management (\"DRM\") is an attempt to bring the restrictions of the physical world onto movies and games. It's the people who make and sell the movies, games and computer software trying to make it so that you can't make copies; or that when you sell your copy, then you won't have a copy anymore. In a nutshell the idea is that for every sale, there should only be one copy out there in the world.\n\nSounds reasonable, right?\n\nWell, the problem for buyers is that DRM doesn't always work the way we would want. Sometimes the techniques they use mean that people who legitimately paid for something can't use it the way they wanted. For example, sometimes you might not be able to play a DVD on your DVD player, because the DRM thinks you're trying to copy it. Sometimes the game you bought might say that someone is already using \"your copy\" of it.\n\nMeanwhile, there are people out there taking the DRM out of these products and making them available for free.\n\nSo, there's a massive problem: sometimes people make illegal copies because the DRM has been taken out and therefore it simply works better, but at the same time the people selling movies and games see all the pirates out there and think that they need to make DRM even more restrictive since, so far, it isn't working\n",
"\"DRM\", or Digital Rights Management, is an umbrella term for any software which is used to enforce the rights an intellectual property (IP) owner has over the use of the IP. Generally, this means providing selective access to that IP to specific parties who have met all the conditions required by the IP holder for its use.\n\nThe IP could be anything; games, music, movies or even pictures, printer cartridge controller software, car computer software, Word documents and so on.\n\nAs long as the IP is in some sort of digital form, the IP owner can use DRM of some sort to more closely control under what circumstances the IP can be used.\n\nThe #1 usage of DRM is to prevent piracy of digital media content. In this scenario, the IP owner uses DRM to restrict someone's access to certain content unless the IP owner (or their authorized agent) has approved their access to it (usually after that person has paid the asking price for it.)\n\nPreventing piracy is not the only use case for DRM, however. Another use case would be to maintain confidentiality; a company might use DRM on a document that allows the intended recipient to read the document on his or her computer, but prevents it from being printed or copied to a flash drive.\n\nDRM is also used to enable new business models and ways of selling content. A good example of this is online movie rentals, where DRM is used to enforce a 24 or 48-hour time limit on viewing, but the limit only kicks in after the \"Play\" button is pressed.\n\nSo why is DRM so bad? Short answer (and the answer that will guarantee this gets downvoted to oblivion): it isn't. It is neither good nor bad. It's a tool, just like a knife; you can use it to cut meat for your dinner, or you can use it to chop someone's head off.\n\nThe only objective measure of DRM is its effectiveness at achieving the goals it was developed for, which are generally more complex and nuanced than many assume. However, a key goal is nearly always to make it as difficult as possible for unauthorized users to access the content while making it as easy as possible for legitimate users to access the content. The contradictory nature of those goals means it's always a delicate balancing act to design a truly effective DRM system.\n\nAnother problem DRM has is that ultimately, someone somewhere has to be able to access the content it is being used to protect. That means somebody somewhere has all the information required to circumvent the DRM--because it must necessarily be circumvented in order to provide access to the content. The danger is, that somebody will have the tenacity, skill and resources to not only circumvent the DRM, but render it completely ineffective.",
"Here's a car metaphor:\n\n* You buy an iCar. You can never change the wheels or anything else.\n\n* You buy iBenzine. It only works in iCars.\n\n* You buy a car from Steam. It is parked at the Steam garage, you can only get new tires at the Steam garage and if you buy benzine and your check bounces they will take away your entire car.\n\n* You buy a car from Activision. It only works as long as you have good radio reception. If you go into a tunnel, go on vacation or their broadcasting system fails, you can't drive your car.\n\n* You buy a car with a Secucar security system. Even though you open the door with your key, sometimes it won't let you start the car.\n\nFed up with this shit, you get a free car from PirateCar. You can park it anywhere you want, change anything you want, drive anywhere you want and you never have problems starting the car.",
"Here's a comic strip that sort of explains things:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.themousetrap.co.za/comics/index.php?cid=26"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.themousetrap.co.za/comics/index.php?cid=26"
]
] |
||
3fkopy
|
what happens to the electrons in batteries when the batteries die?
|
I have always wondered what happens to the electrons in batteries in the devices we use, like our phones. When we are charging a battery we're basically feeding the battery electrons. But where do the electrons go when the batteries die. Electrons can't just vanish.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fkopy/eli5_what_happens_to_the_electrons_in_batteries/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctphvmf",
"ctpi899",
"ctpkbnt"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Current flows through closed circuits. Electrons drift along through the circuit, at [drift velocity](_URL_0_), on average. When the voltage is turned off or the circuit is opened, the electrons just go about their business as usual.",
"Charging is not *just* 'feeding' electrons to your phone. By that analogy, it's also taking electrons from your phone. The battery inside has +/-, just like any other battery. When discharging, electrons flow from the - to the + side. Then when charging, they flow the other way. Your battery doesn't really 'lose' electrons.",
"A battery has two parts, considered the positive and negative sides. When the battery is charged, the electrons are in the negative side. In this state, they are repelled from the negative side and attracted towards the positive side. These repulsive and attractive forces push the electrons toward the negative side. The motion of the electrons as they move from the negative to positive sides is what powers your phone, for example.\n\n\nWhen the electrons reach the positive side, the repulsive and attractive forces have completed their job, and there is no where else for the electron to move. Just as a ball at the bottom of a hill remains at rest and without potential energy, so too does an electron on the positive side of a battery. In order to reuse the battery, the electrons must be returned to the negative side where they reacquire their potential energy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/miccur.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
5d3aws
|
how is the speed of vehicles traveling on a highway monitored by aircraft?
|
I went on a road trip recently and on the way there were signs that say speed monitored by aircraft. How does this work? Are drones used? Some type of plane/helicopter or even a blimp? Is it more accurate/effective?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d3aws/eli5_how_is_the_speed_of_vehicles_traveling_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da1fljw",
"da1ghbt",
"da1iflv",
"da1m3vd",
"da1r4zm",
"da1u2c6",
"da1wdip",
"da1yln5"
],
"score": [
77,
8,
26,
10,
10,
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Lines are painted 1/4 mile (or possibly other distances) away from each other across the highway. A plane flies above the marked area with officers who will time cars from point a to point b. He/she will then radio down to patrol cars the location, color, and model of the car, and the calculated speed based on the time it took them to travel from a to b. It's generally not used as its pretty expensive to keep the planes up in the air. ",
"I am not sure if this is the case, but there is also the possibility to measure speed by using what is called Doppler Radar. The way this works is by sending a radio wave of a known frequency to a target (the car) and then measuring the frequency of the reflected wave. The Doppler Effect makes the frequency shift proportionally to the speed of the target, therefore being able to measure how fast it is going.\n\nThere are many things to account for in this measurement; for instance, you are only going to be able to measure how fast the target is moving towards (or away from) you, and so, you have to know how fast you are going and the relative angle between you (the aircraft) and the car's direction.",
"everyone here is giving good answers about how the speed is monitored, but here is *why* those signs exist:\n\n- state and local officials are required by federal law to enforce speed limits on roads that received federal funding\n- doing this is expensive, and in places like wyoming they don't really care how fast you're driving in the 200 miles between cities\n- they post these signs and do flybies once a year so they don't have to actually put troopers out on roads in the middle of nowhere\n- any time you see these signs, feel free to drive as fast as you want because nobody is actually watching",
"Just wait until you start getting tickets on toll roads using EZ Pass when the states start to look at how fast you travelled between toll gates vice the posted speed limits.",
"I always loved the signs that actually say \"Speed ENFORCED by aircraft\"... I mean, ENFORCED?! Unless there's damned Predator drones up there with Hellfire missiles flying around nothing is being ENFORCED (and as others have said, nothing's even being MONITORED 99.9999% of the time!)",
"Fun fact: In California, it's not legal to enforce speed limits by timing a vehicle between two fixed points. That's defined as a speed trap in the California Vehicle Code, and not allowed.\n \nAnd yet, there is still enforcement via aircraft! How is that possible? \n \nWell, what the CHP does is \"pace\" your vehicle with the shadow of the aircraft, then time the shadow between those quarter mile hash marks on the shoulder. They calculate the ground speed of the aircraft, and then issue a ticket based on you being paced, rather than timed between fixed points. Pretty shifty, but within the letter of the law.",
"I thought they used mile markers? Calculate the time it takes for the car to travel from say mile marker 157 to marker 158.",
"A helicopter occasionally monitors how long it takes each vehicle to drive from one line across the road to another. My cousin knows a guy who painted one of the lines asphalt colour, and painted a new white line 100 metres up the road so he could speed there and not be discovered by the helicopter. Lol. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4imc41
|
why do people have empathy for "big" animals that dies or slaughtered, but not for "small" animals like insects?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4imc41/eli5_why_do_people_have_empathy_for_big_animals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2z8s2b",
"d2zczvk",
"d2znbc1"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I feel a relationship with Animals that I can tell have feeling. It's easy to see a dogs feelings, but seems like ants just don't give a fuck about anything except ruining your picnic ",
"They're called \"charismatic megafauna,\" which are big animals that environmental and wildlife advocates often use as symbols to achieve their goals. For example, the World Wide Fund for Nature has a giant panda in its logo.",
"It's much easier to personify something with a \"face\" that's closer to humans. Bug eyes and mandibles look scary and alien, so people don't have the same reactions to it as, say, a cat. As a human, you \"get\" a cat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5s8o35
|
what were the neanderthals, exactly?
|
They're mentioned a few times in history, but it was never explained to me. How are they related to us? What makes them different? How and why did we wipe them all out? Do we share Neanderthal genes? Did we coexist before the war? What was the war about? Did it have a name? Sorry for being rapid-fire, I'm just insanely curious about these guys.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s8o35/eli5_what_were_the_neanderthals_exactly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddd5y8p",
"ddd622m",
"ddd6njq",
"dddf8bs"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Neanderthals where a species of hominids that went extinct 40,000 years ago. For the most part they would be indistinguishable to today's humans. They originated from the area around modern day Germany and stayed fairly contained in Europe. They went extinct due to a whole list of reasons. The largest being that modern day humans where more efficient hunter gatherers. When it came to a resources modern humans gathered more and the Neanderthals would slowly die off due to not being able to compete. The ones that did survive would mate with modern humans and their bloodline would slowly become more and more like modern day humans. If you are Europe there is a good chance that you have some Neanderthal dna. ",
"Neanderthals are an extinct species of hominid (homo-neanderthalensis). They went extinct about 40,000 years ago and they were primarily located in Europe. We don't fully know why they went extinct, though there are many theories. For a long time it was thought that homo sapiens (modern humans) wiped them out, though this is falling out of favor in the scientific community. Another theory is that we interbred enough to no longer distinguish between the species. So, we can't tell for certain why they went extinct. There was no war that I know of, though other may know more than I. \n\nWe are sequencing the neanderthal genome, and it shares remarkable similarities to our own genome. They are much less diverse than we are, which may have been a part of their extinction. I sequenced a part of my mitochondrial DNA and compared it to the mitochondrial DNA of a neanderthal from Russia. There were 40 nucleotide differences, with a 17.9% overall difference in our genes. That is quite small for mitochondrial DNA. \n\nHere is a great link for further information. _URL_0_",
"Neanderthals were very closely related to humans. They shared 99.7% of our DNA. We evolved from the same common ancestor about 500,000 years ago, which is a minuscule amount of time on an evolutionary scale. They were remarkably similar to us, although with some minor physical differences. They were shorter, stockier, and had wider noses and larger sloped brows. That being said, you could look at a forensic reconstruction of one and without knowing it wasn't a human, you'd have no reason to think they weren't.\n\nHumans and Neanderthals coexisted for millennia before they went extinct roughly 40,000 years ago, and humans played a role in their demise, but there was absolutely no war, and humans almost certainly didn't actually engage in combat them. The concept of war didn't even exist that long ago. The reason they went extinct is that humans were simply better. Early humans were more adaptable and Neanderthals couldn't compete. We did interbreed though, and as a result, almost every human who isn't from Africa has some Neanderthal DNA in them.\n",
"You can see the two skulls side by side [here](_URL_1_).\n\nIn terms of survival knowledge we were probably similar, in the way an orangutang and a chimp might be similar, or two types of gorilla might be.\n\nThere are some anatomical differences, for example--humans (in good physical shape) tend to be taller on average than the neanderthal average. They were stocky and powerful, not unlike what the dwarves in LOTR, for example. Based on analysis of the skeletons we've found, it is likely had hands similar to ours, but their arms may not have had as much range of motion. Throwing spears is something we were probably better at, for example, while they may have preferred clubbing or thrusting/jabbing. Similar differences in the legs, though for all intents and purposes we could have largely kept up with each other in various games of general skill.\n\nWhile language was almost certainly part of their culture (by necessity), it is uncertain how developed their vocal capabilities were. While humans of the time seemed to have similar vocal capabilities to modern man.\n\nOne more curious observation is that Neanderthal sites seem to lack art almost entirely, while human settlements in the same time frame are often heavily decorated. Neanderthals likely did practice body art, and decorated dishes and things, but not much beyond that. Compare [this finding](_URL_3_) with [human art](_URL_2_), including many even older caves than the most recent Neanderthal sites.\n\nWhile it is likely that Neanderthals had some spiritual elements to their lives there is little to nothing known about them, so I can't speak to that.\n\nMost humans do have at least some neanderthal genes, something measurable now that we have the ability to sequence both our own genes, that of ancient humans, and that of neanderthals. Central African peoples tend to have little to none, while people of European, Middle Eastern, and Asian ancestry tend to have at least a little (up to 3% in some cases). For this reason, and lack of evidence indicating war related damages, it is thought that we interbred to some degree and simply outhunted them in other degrees. There were certainly violent encounters, but neither group would have had the people or \"spare\" resources for what we now call a war. More likely there were occasional feuds, but for the most part the people ignored each other, stole or traded from each other (including mates), and otherwise tried to survive as best they could while ignoring the other. Some info [at this link](_URL_0_).\n\nA compelling fictionalization of that era is found in the novel [Clan of the Cave Bear](_URL_4_), link to the audio book there. I can't speak to the movie, though critical reviews are...less than compelling. The book is actually quite good. The second in the series is also interesting, with each of the remaining books being somewhat more drama-laced though no less thoughtfully laid out. There is a little artistic license in the book, though the author took pains to include as much factual or \"reasonable extrapolation\" information to construct the framework. Despite being written some thirty years ago it is still quite capable, what were then \"reasonable extrapolations\" have in many cases proven to be reasonable indeed. *Note: there are a few borderline violent scenes throughout; and some adult themes including rape near the end of the book.*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis"
],
[],
[
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/",
"http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/images/Neandertal_modern_human_skulls.gif",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting",
"http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28967746",
"https://youtu.be/VA9C_MdQREc?list=PLCMJRffvRxb1_xLtk9m3tYlaXe2kX09jf"
]
] |
|
dxpvc4
|
which fats are which on a food label? which of them are alright to eat and which should we avoid?
|
So there's four types of fats:
1. Saturated fats.
2. Monounsaturated fats.
3. Polyunsaturated fats.
4. Trans fats.
Whenever I read a food label, I see total fat and saturated fats mentioned, but never the other three. How do I know which fat is in my food? What is total fat exactly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dxpvc4/eli5_which_fats_are_which_on_a_food_label_which/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7ur2mx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Saturated fat is almost always on the food label because the FDA says that they have to be, unless the food in question contains 0 grams of them. Trans fat also has to be listed unless the food in question contains 0 grams of it, but its fairly rare for foods to have any trans fat in them.\n\nThe reason that the FDA mandates saturated fat to be on the label is that there is a broad consensus that no amount of saturated fat is good for you. That doesn't mean that its necessarily \"bad\" for you, just that no level of intake is beneficial and high levels of intake may be harmful. \n\nAt a practical level, its impossible to completely avoid saturated fat since there is a small amount of it in everything. That being said, the main source of saturated fat for most people is butter, which is almost 100% saturated fat.\n\nMost trans fat comes from partially hydrogenating vegetable oil, and there is broad consensus that such trans fat is one of the main causes of heart disease in the modern world. Trans fat from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil was made illegal a few years ago, and as a result its very rare for there to be trans fat in food.\n\nDespite that, you will occasionally see products with small amounts of trans fat in them. This trans fat comes from butter, which naturally has trace amounts of trans fat in it. It does not appear as though trans fat from butter has a different effect on your body than saturated fat.\n\nCompanies aren't required to break down the total amount of mono or polyunsaturated fats in food. It appears as though both types of fat are generally healthy to eat, but there is a lot of debate about what the best ratio of mono/poly fat to carbs and protein is.\n\nTotal fat is just that - its the total amount of all 4 types of fat in the food. So if a food has 10 grams of total fat, 2 grams of saturated fat, and 0 grams of trans fat then the remaining 8 grams of fat are a combination of mono and poly unsaturated fat.\n\nThere is nothing stopping companies from going above and beyond the minimum labeling requirements which is why you sometimes see trans fat on a label, despite the product having 0 grams of it, or mono/poly fat broken out individually."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2lb8lc
|
if there is any historical proof other than the bible that the whole jews in egypt, moses, and joshua thing actually happened?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lb8lc/eli5_if_there_is_any_historical_proof_other_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clt7yrv",
"clt8yx8"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Short answer no, although that doesn't mean it didn't happen it just means we haven't found anything to say so. There are somethings that we know didn't happen (the sun standing still in the sky, not sure if that was Joshua or not), and somethings we have good reason to believe didn't happen (massive exodus from Egypt). Still it is impossible to prove a negative.",
"There is proof that a large group of people migrated into what is now Israel and more or less laid waste to the region, and that these people had very different sacrificial and dietary habits than the people that came before or after. There's no specific proof that this group came from Egypt. However, Egyptians tended to be very selective about what they wrote down and would often \"purge\" unpopular or embarrassing events and people from written record. While possible that Hebrews were kept as slaves in Egypt, the numbers posited in Exodus are certainly over-inflated (I think it's something like 2 million people?). \n\nAnother hole in the Exodus story is the lack of evidence of settlements and other detritus in the Sinai peninsula, particularly in the areas specifically mentioned. However, this is an area of the world that has been in flux for thousands of years, with many large migrations of large numbers of people. So archeologically speaking, things are a bit murky regardless.\n\nIt's important to note that most of the events of the Old Testament up to the Babylonian Exile were passed down orally, and not actually written down until the Israelites were held as Babylonian captives. So it would have been important to those people (1) to codify the rules and laws that good Jews observed, in order to maintain cultural autonomy and (2) create a narrative that paralleled their current situation. \n\nThat's not to say that I think the events of the Pentateuch are completely made up, but likely they didn't go down exactly as described. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2a5sn1
|
what gives something the sensation of comfortable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a5sn1/eli5_what_gives_something_the_sensation_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cirr2i5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your body is constantly monitoring any sensations, forces, or actions that, while tolerable for a short period of time, will need to be dealt with at some point in the future or you risk damaging something or injuring yourself. I can sit on an uncomfortable chair for 10 minutes, but my brain is aware that the pressure points that it is creating are not sustainable for very long. Eventually I will need to change position, and I know that. \n\nWhen you are in a position where all the forces and sensations on your body are long-term sustainable, and nothing is on a \"timer\" for how long you can tolerate it, that's what we consider to be \"comfortable\". That's when we can relax. That's when we can stop worrying about moving around and adjusting over and over again. That's when we can just close our eyes and float off into the dreamworld...."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7fvyn1
|
is a p value of .53 significant or not?
|
I was reading up a little bit on how a p value over .05 is "significant" but then when I researched that idea to understand it better, I found an article explaining that number (.05) is outdated and arbitrary and means nothing. Further research brought up a highlight from some study which said "p value of .53 is not significant as .05 was already expected." A completely different study said that change in blood levels of [hormone A] and [hormone b] were not significant and listed their p values as .59 and .53 respectively. **How do we determine what p value is significant?**
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7fvyn1/eli5_is_a_p_value_of_53_significant_or_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqeq06u",
"dqeq985",
"dqf029y"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
6
],
"text": [
"P values are used when comparing a hypothesis to a null hypothesis. That is, when you want to disprove something, and say it works another way.\n\nSo, let's say that you aren't sure that they really make as many green M & Ms as the other colors. Your null hypothesis is that they do. Your alternative hypothesis is that they make fewer green M & Ms, and you'll probably have to pick a number, like 75% as many as the other colors.\n\nWhen you finish your test, you'll end up with a p value. That p value is the chances, based on your experiment, that you're wrong. So, a p value of 0.53 means there's about a 50/50 shot that you're blowing smoke right now, and green M & Ms aren't produced at 75% the rate. If your p value is 0.05, you're about 95% sure that M & Ms is making 75% as many green ones as the other ones.\n\nYou'll note that this never proves the null hypothesis. They might make *more* green ones, for example, and your test would come home with a pretty high p value. \n\nIt also doesn't prove your hypothesis. It can only prove that your second hypothesis is much more likely than the 'null' hypothesis. For example, if they really produced half as many green M & Ms as the other colors, your experiment would return a very low p value, and a subsequent experiment that uses yours as the null hypothesis and a guess of 50% would produce a *higher* and *worse* p-value, but still a significant one.\n\nUltimately, you can pick any number to be significant. Maybe in your field, being 70% sure that the accepted figures are wrong is enough for you, especially if your sample is gigantic and your methodology perfect. Typically, though, you should be at least 95% sure that your experiment proves something before you publish it in a scientific journal.",
"Under. It's under .05 that's significant. In simple terms, what p means is that if it's .05 (5%) or below, the result has a less than 5% chance of having occurred by random chance. A p of .53 would be better than a 50-50 chance of having happened by random chance and would never be considered significant. Did it maybe say .053? As for .05 being arbitrary, that's true, because the idea behind it is simply \"let's choose a small probability of x event happening by chance and use that as the cutoff.\" That's not to say that it's useless, it is suggestive at the very least and indicates a potential area of interesting research.",
"One common mistake I haven't seen anyone explain here, in fact I've seen people make the mistake in their answers, is the following: \nThe p value represents the chance that your result would have occurred, if the null hypothesis were true. That does NOT equal the chance that the null hypothesis IS true, given your results! In practice, when one of these values is very low the other will generally be very small too, but there is still a significant difference.\n\nDetermining the chance that your null hypothesis is still true, is tougher.. It requires an assumption of how big you estimated said chance before you got the results, which is often subjective."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5l0g6f
|
what about human behavior makes it so difficult to recreate it accurately in cgi without uncanny valley effect?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5l0g6f/eli5_what_about_human_behavior_makes_it_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbrzvtl",
"dbs1ep8"
],
"score": [
17,
14
],
"text": [
"The motion of the human body has many complications including:\n\n- Muscle tremor\n- Vibration of muscle tissue, and differing vibration of fat tissue\n- Spring-like stretching of the skin\n- Constantly adjusting inputs to the muscles from the motor neurons\n",
"It's not so much that human behaviour is harder to mimic than the behaviour of other animals, it's that you are more likely to notice flaws in a human's behaviour because it actually means something to you.\n\nAs someone who intimately studies animal behaviour, I can tell you they're a long way off from properly producing the body language of really any animal. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
214c6q
|
if we all evolved from the same thing, why aren't there more species in between the evolution chain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/214c6q/eli5_if_we_all_evolved_from_the_same_thing_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg9hq8h",
"cg9hvjk"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Because living things die and leave gaps. For there to be no \"gap\" between any two living things no living thing must have died ever.\n\nWhen your grandparents die there is a gap between you and your cousins. The gap between species is the same, only that there are more degrees of cousins and more ancestors died to create the gaps.",
"Evolution is not a chain. Think of it more like a tree with a large trunk and millions of branches spreading out from that trunk, and then sub-branches growing off from that, and sub-sub-branches, etc.\n\nWhy aren't there more species? There are uncounted billions of different species of animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, and more. The lineage of humans (homo sapiens) is very well established and there are more than a dozen identified species tying modern humans back to precurser apes. See [here](_URL_1_).\n\nAlso bear in mind that not every animal that dies leaves remains that will be preserved for paleontologists to find millions of years later. The process of [fossilization](_URL_0_) requires particular environmental circumstances, and there may well be other species which we know nothing about simply because we haven't found their fossils (yet)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution"
]
] |
||
157ij8
|
why does reddit hate papa john's pizza?
|
I have seen negative references to Papa John on Reddit but never really understand the context. Is it the pizza or the company? What is the back story?
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/157ij8/eli5_why_does_reddit_hate_papa_johns_pizza/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7jy7rn",
"c7k4muh",
"c7kdgdn"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Reddit is liberal. Papa John said he ObamaCare would possibly cause him/franshises to raise the price of pizza 15 to 20 cents and keep the same profit margins therefore employee benefits etc. People got sensitive and now hate him and his pizza.",
"You've LOST the sheep!",
"cuz Peyton Manning sucks"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3aqf8s
|
what would happen if a slave owner had sex with one of his slaves and the slave had a baby from her master? would the son or daughter conceived be considered a slave as well?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aqf8s/eli5what_would_happen_if_a_slave_owner_had_sex/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cseyyli",
"cseyz5o",
"csf2t40",
"csf2yb9",
"csf3pap",
"csf3roo",
"csf447q",
"csf49io",
"csf4sp4",
"csf5cbk",
"csf74ka",
"csf75tb",
"csf7sup",
"csf7t1x",
"csf81cq",
"csfiuvr",
"csfuz3m"
],
"score": [
389,
106,
19,
6,
4,
6,
11,
10,
65,
7,
11,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. It would be considered a slave. Some slave owners might show special consideration for these children, but many did not. ",
"Slavery works differently all over the world, but if you're talking about how things used to work during slavery in the US, then yes, that individual would also be a slave, probably working in the house rather than in the fields.",
"The child would often be a house slave, as the lighter skinned slaves often were, but certainly a slave none the less. Property is property.",
"Alexandre Dumas's dad was a french nobleman and his mother was a slave. Alexandre was born a slave, but freed and went on to write the Three Muskateers. ",
"Chattel slavery in the US, yeah.\n\nIndentured servitude, not necessarily, but there are lots of ways around it. Generally someone would sell themselves into indenture, but lots of people got kidnapped and sold into it against their will.\n\n[Lot of variations as well.](_URL_1_)\n\n > In 1662 a birthright law mandated that the child of a free white mother and Negro father was technically free. An amendment to this stated that the free white woman had to pay fifteen pounds sterling within a month of the birth. If not paid, she would become an indentured servant for five years. The child was bound in service for thirty years whether or not the fine was paid.\n\nEdit: BTW £15 at that time was a lot of money. In the 18th century (100-years later) , that would be [1/3 the yearly income of a skilled artisan](_URL_0_). Imagine a $20,000 fine to avoid a five-years of servitude for birthing a mixed-race kid and the kid becomes a slave for 30-years no matter what you do.",
"A lot of times, the mistress of the house would be cruel to the child because based on his/her skin color, it was often obvious the father wasn't another slave. When it came to choosing slaves to work in the house, some people preferred lighter skinned people.\n\nETA: in US",
"Still happening a lot in Mauritania: \"Moulkheir Mint Yarba escaped from slavery in 2010. She was born into slavery and never knew her parents. [...] Yarba was repeatedly beaten and raped by her master, bearing seven children by him, one of which her owners killed, she says, to punish her.\"\n\n_URL_0_",
"It depends on the culture you are speaking of.\n\nDo you mean black slaves in America? Then yes. One drop of black blood made you a black slave.\n\nSlaves in modern day asia, or ancient Greece or the other hundreds of places and time periods that had slaves? It depends.",
"First, this was a very, regular occurrence. Modern DNA testing has revealed that the average African American is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American. Given the extremely low intermarriage rates, historically a fraction of a percent, it can be surmised the majority of this genetic diversity came from the slave period. Moreover, it is a fact that \"White\" American's percent of African genes is much, much lower: only 12% of whites in South Carolina have at least 1% African Genes. This supports the idea that broad intermarriage and mating between European Americans and African Americans populations simply wasn't happening (or the genetic diversity would be more even). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what would cause a tinny fraction of European Americans to have African genes, but a near universal percent of African Americans to have substantial European genes. Hint, the top 1% of the European American elite, which were the plantation owners, were regularly entering into sexual relations with their slaves--through force, bribery, exploitation, or whatever.\n\nFurther, multiple accounts of slaves and contemporary descriptions of plantations show it was common for mixed race slaves to be given preferential work, as servants in the main house rather than the fields. Harriet Jacobs, wrote an autobiography, which in addition to being one of the few female slave accounts, details how she was forced into a sexual relationship with her master, and describes the tacit understanding their children would have similar beneficial treatment. Furthermore, we see even the founding fathers, notably Thomas Jefferson, engaged in this exact practice. The scandal of his Presidential Election was that the slave help around his main house looked like a bunch of Europeans (obliviously taking the practice too far), in addition to his long term relationship with his very European looking slave, Sally Hemmings.\n\nThe rules around slavery varied from state to state. However, it was almost universal that, the status of slave was inherited from one's mother, and that slaves had no legal rights. Slaves could not testify at all in court (or at a minimum, not against a white witness), bring lawsuits on their own behalf, own property, or enter into contracts. This made legal protection a pipe dream. The slave would need a white citizen to bring their case for them, testify for them, pay their fees for them, sign attorney agreements for them, and have standing to bring the case.\n\nIt is true that many states passed laws banning masters from \"cruel treatment\" of slaves, and also passed general prohibitions against sexual relations between whites and blacks. However, think of how dangerous it would have been for a slave to defy her master and claim she was being forced into a sexual relationship, that her children's father was her master, or she was being treated in a cruel manner--even with legal rights. Think of how many employees realize suing an employer is a one way ticket to losing their job and future reputation in their industry. Now think of a slave whose master decides what you eat, what job you do, what quarters you stay in, how many hours you work, and think of the reality of challenging them, or offending them. It would be legal to, after the case, to sell the slave to a sugar plantation, or its equivalent, where the life expectancy was 5 years. The phrase, \"sold me down the river,\" is in reference to the practice of selling unruly slaves to the brutal cotton plantations, typically down the Mississippi River. This would prevent legal recourse before the outright bans on testifying, bringing cases, signing contracts, and owning property. I challenge you to hire an attorney without the ability to access money or sign a contract--let alone with the realization that even if you won, your owner had every right to sell you to a harsh plantation were you would be worked to an early death.\n\nIt is obvious these restrictions on masters, were not to protect the slaves, but to protect the institution. They were to allow other elites to apply pressure on masters acting outside the norm, such as either Jefferson treating a slave as his second, secrete wife, or to curb an extremely tyrannical overseer, whose excessive abuse threatened the institution as a whole. \n\nAsk Historians a few months ago tried to dig up a case where a master faced legal repercussions for cruelty, and it came up dry. Not that it never happened, but was obviously very rare. I bet a case where a master was legally required to face parentage would be equally rare. Think of Jefferson, the most open about entering a relationship with his slave, he never admitted to parentage, never faced legal action, and simply freed his children at his death.\n\nConsider the following slave codes from South Carolina, and think how one would ever go about asserting their master was also their children's father:\n\n A summary of South Carolina slave Laws:\nProp VI. \" The slave, being personal chattel, is at all times liable to be sold absolutely, or mortgaged or leased, at the will of his master\"\nProp. XI \"Slaves cannot redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such change necessary for their personal safety\"\nProp. X. \"Slaves being objects of property, if injured by third persons, their owners, may bring suit, and recover damages for the injury.\"\nProp. XI \"Slaves can make no contract.\"\nProp. XII Slavery is hereditary and perpetual.\"\n\nAccounts of Slaves\n_URL_2_\n\nAmerican Genetic Studies\n_URL_1_\n\nAutobiography of Harriet Jacobs, forced into a sexual relationship with her Master before escape:\n_URL_0_\n\nSC Slave Code:\nGeorge M. Stroud, A Sketch of the Laws Relating to Slavery, p. 88-89\n\nEDIT: I know this is way too long for a ELI5, but the amount of revisionist history regarding slavery, masking how terrible it was, in the US is disgusting. \n ",
"Sometimes it got really creepy. Sally Hemmings was the younger half sister of Jefferson's wife. Same father, slave mother. When Jefferson got married, Hemmings came with her half sister as property to the new house. After the wife's death, Jefferson began sleeping with Sally Hemmings and fathered many children through her. I believe she was the same age as Jefferson's daughter by his white wife. Somehow he also owned Hemming's brothers (not sure of their parentage). There's been lots of debate about what Hemmings actually felt for Jefferson. Even if she cared her him, he was sill much older than her and her owner. Creepy. Upon his death she and all their kids were freed. I have some memory that she was actually had been free for years and refused to leave him but that may be Hollywood fluff. ",
"Short answer: Yes.\n\nLong Answer: For a while America followed English common law, which stated that the child inherited the status of the father. However, because so many slave owners were raping their female slaves, there were suddenly a growing number of free half-black heirs to the slave-owner's property. To curb this, they actually changed the law so that the child inherits the status of the mother. Therefore the masters could continue to rape their slaves and not worry about having to raise their children, or seeing their property go to a black person when they died. It also probably helped avoid scandal for the family.\n\nTL;DR They changed the law to fuck over the kids.",
"For a specific example, many people believe Thomas Jefferson to be the father of Sally Hemmings' four surviving children. Though they reportedly looked very \"white\" and could pass as such, because one parent was a slave, they were considered slaves and legally black as well. They seem to have been given special treatment from Jefferson, as he put provisions in place to free two (?) of them when they came of age. Two others ran away and were not pursued, which was thought to be deliberate on Jefferson's part. He didn't do this for any other slaves on his plantation, with the exception of a butler and one other adult male slave, who had been very loyal to him. ",
"It was proof of a shameful act, considering the mind set of those individuals back then. To have such a marr come to public knowledge would be embarrassing... even though a ton of them were doing it. You have to think about it really, anyone willing to own slaves is most probably willing to rape a female and disown a child. It just kind of comes with the territory. So they would be put to work and forgotten, maybe even sometimes drowned. :(\n\nand if you think of the sheer numbers of people that actually owned slaves, logically thinking, you have to wonder about a majority of people alive today that still embellish the ideals of that time period. They have more to fear coming out than gays do, because there is a majority of people unwilling to put up with bigotry anymore.",
"This is complicated because the outcome would have been different based in 3 things:\n\n1) when it happened\n2) where it happened\n3) which parent was which race\n\nIn Virginia in the late 1600's, if a white woman had sex with a black man and became pregnant, she would be whipped and fined. But the child would be free. \n\nWhile in Maryland, she would be sold into servitude and the child as well until age 31 (21 if the parents married).\n\nThe laws changed throughout the years, but in the early days the parents were punished harshly for the 'offense'. The primary offense was sex outside of marriage, miscegenation being the secondary offense. \n\nYou can read more about the evolution of the laws here: _URL_0_",
"In a lot of societies that had slavery, slave status came from the mother. If the mother was free, child is free. If mother is a slave, child is a slave. I don't remember what all societies this applied to though.",
"Many French slave owners would send their half-caste children over to France for a better education and treat them as Bastards. One of Napoleon's generals was half-black, and had the dubious distinction of being born a slave because of his mother's standing, but also a noble because of his father. \n_URL_0_",
"But what if it was a female owner who got pregnant? Would the baby still be considered a slave?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=qyYRbGzqn08C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=annual+income+17th+century+north+america&source=bl&ots=eiaQkPIKOB&sig=oZGpX0v9JJYe3fB6q3HVyPU06Vw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y46IVZS-JYzSoAT0oaTAAg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=annual%20income%2017th%20century%20north%20america&f=false",
"http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site18/Conditions%20of%20Indentured%20Servants2.htm"
],
[],
[
"http://m.irinnews.org/report/97016/mauritania-anti-slavery-law-still-tough-to-enforce#.VYVyDiWwrqA"
],
[],
[
"http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/152519.Incidents_in_the_Life_of_a_Slave_Girl",
"http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans",
"http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/wpa/wpahome.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.saveyourheritage.com/historical_perspective_on_interracial_marriage.htm"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas-Alexandre_Dumas"
],
[]
] |
||
5orzei
|
if text messages are encrypted, how can government agencies access them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5orzei/eli5if_text_messages_are_encrypted_how_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcll3tz",
"dclmcwr"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The communication between your cell phone and the cell tower is encrypted, but it is not end-to-end encrypted between your cell phone and the other cell phone. That means that there are three people that can read the message: you, the person who controls the cell tower, and the person you're sending the message to. If the government controls the cell tower (by using a cell site simulator, commonly referred to by the brand name \"Stingray\"), or compels the telecom company that owns the tower to give them the messages, they can read them.",
"Encryption is between a sender and a number of recipients. Typically, as in this case, you are the sender and your service provider is the recipient - NOT your friend's phone. That is the nature of your relationship between you and your provider. So the recipient, your provider, has *plaintext* access to your message and delivers it on your behalf to a 3rd party, your friend, via his phone. The encryption scheme is only meant to keep unauthorized 3rd parties out. For example, anyone with the equipment can listen in to the radio signals from your phone, but they're not the intended recipient, so your message is guarded against them. Likewise, the internet is composed of networks, and your message may have to traverse a network your carrier doesn't own to get to its destination. Your carrier encrypts between itself and it's destination across that 3rd party network so all they see is the *cyphertext*.\n\nBut never forget you're talking to your carrier, not your friend; you don't own the radio frequencies, or the right to broadcast on those frequencies, and you don't own the network your provider carries your message on your behalf, they do. They have unencrypted access to the communications you establish with them.\n\nThere are applications that encrypt messages between you and your destination directly, but you need to be able to build and install ALL the software yourself, from the OS up, because these phones are untrustworthy closed platforms that may and historically have and probably still do contain backdoors, all the way down to the hardware level. So in conclusion, cellphones and proprietary platforms and software are inherently insecure and untrustworthy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5aqizl
|
how do cable companies avoid anti-trust laws?
|
I saw questions involving monopolies, and it seems that certain cities vote to allow them, but how do they avoid anti-trust laws when you have CEOs describing staying out of each others territories intentionally? Will there ever be a point where I have a choice, where their service will be forced to improve or be dropped for a competitor?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5aqizl/eli5_how_do_cable_companies_avoid_antitrust_laws/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9igkka",
"d9igqc5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The argument has always been that customers can choose satellite tv and, in some markets, fiber offerings like Google or Uverse. I doubt we'll ever see a day that there are two traditional cable companies in a market. The cost to build out that infrastructure is just too great for diminishing returns. Especially now with the growing number of cord-cutters and over the top streaming options. ",
"This is mostly because anti-trust is federal, and no single cable company has a national monopoly. By voluntarily staying out of each other's way, each company preserves a local monopoly while still remaining competitors on a national scale.\n\nFurther, there are usually other telecomm options available that count as competitors, such as satellite, despite it being a different sort of service."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6za7m5
|
the rohingya crisis
|
I want to know what's exactly happening there, especially since I read mixed and different narrations about the whole thing.
Thanks.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6za7m5/eli5_the_rohingya_crisis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmvv33y"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"So, the Rohingya have lived there for centuries, under several different jurisdictions, and were all right for the most part. After World War II, they were part of Burmese society, but when Ne Win took over in the '62 coup, he changed everything for them. Today, they are not considered citizens of Myanmar (and in fact legally cannot be citizens thanks to the wording of Myanmar's 1982 citizenship laws), cannot participate in government, have no recognized rights, and are officially barred from having more than two children.\n\nEven when they flee the country as refugees, the Rohingya are treated like vermin. Indonesian rescuers found some on a boat who claimed that the Thai government forced them onto it and drove it out to sea before abandoning them. Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia are accused of \"playing human ping-pong\" with them, pushing them back out to sea when they arrive on their shores.\n\nThese people are fighting back, but only because they've been pushed too far. The Burmese government is instigating anti-Rohingya violence in order to crack down on their responses. This is clear evidence of genocide, but the rest of the world is too timid to call them out on it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6bdk0u
|
why is it beneficial to launch a spacecraft close to the equator instead of one of earths poles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bdk0u/eli5why_is_it_beneficial_to_launch_a_spacecraft/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhls0mv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It also depends on your final destination orbit inclination. The maximum launch efficiency comes from launching directly east into an orbit with an inclination equal to your latitude. So if you're aiming at a geostationary orbit with a 0 degree inclination, then the best launch platform is at the equator. But if you're launching a polar orbiting weather satellite, you want something further north.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
722dj9
|
the process of composers writing amazing scores for movies work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/722dj9/eli5_the_process_of_composers_writing_amazing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnf943i"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It varies between films and composers. Some may work from the footage, while others may just be given a tone and told to run with it. \n\nI saw an interview with Hans Zimmer discussing his composing for *Interstellar*, where Nolan gave him a section of the script (Cooper and Murph having a conversation, with the character names and movie title removed) and told him to compose according to that. Zimmer was under the impression that the movie was about the relationship between a father and son, and was surprised when it was later revealed to be space-themed.\n\nOn the opposite side of the spectrum, John Williams worked very closely with Lucas on the Star Wars films, even going so far as to add or remove individual measures to ensure that the music and visuals meshed as well as possible.\n\nTLDR; It depends on how much info the director wants the composer to have."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1vavwu
|
what are the causes of chronic pain fibromyalgia? why don't individuals with this disease become accustommed to the pain or develop a higher pain tolerance?
|
I have limited understanding of chronic pain (Grey's Anatomy) and this idea always pops in my head when I see the commercials. People develop tolerances for painful heat and cold, how is chronic pain different?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vavwu/eli5_what_are_the_causes_of_chronic_pain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceqfvrt",
"ceqitoa",
"ceqr6rt"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The cause of Fibromyalgia is still under debate as far as I'm aware. However, in response to your question - one of the main symptoms of fibro is *reduced tolerance* to pain. (I.e. fibro sufferers experience pain where the rest of us would typically experience nothing more than normal sensation), so asking why a fibro sufferer cannot develop an increased tolerance for pain is a bit like asking if you can increase the tolerance for a reduced tolerance. I.e. it doesn't make sense. ",
"Actually recent breakthroughs have shown that fibromyalgia is not psychosomatic. Researchers have been able to demonstrate that the brain function appears very different in people experiencing a flair of their symptoms.(in healthy test subjects 2 areas related to pain showed activity with pressure stimulus, while those with fibro showed activity in 12 areas of the brain)\n It has also been discovered that the majority of people with fibro have significantly more small nerve endings that surround cappilaries under our skin. These typically serve to help manage body temp, but may play a role in the abnormal pain process of fibro. \nThe cause of fibro, or the disease process, is still not completely understood but the pieces that are being defined are very empowering for the fibro community, who live under that shroud of misunderstanding and doubt.",
"[Chronic pain and acute pain are completely different entities. Whereas acute pain is usually due to tissue injury, chronic pain is a self perpetuating feedback loop which involves changes in the\nspinal cord transmission, hypersensitivity of nerves which fire off pain signals even when there is no pain source, and chemical changes which occur inside the spine. Acute pain represents a warning signal that something is wrong and triggers a withdrawal response, chronic pain instead is perpetual, does not go away, and results in many many problems for patients. Sleep is decreased due to chronic pain and when sleep is insufficient, pain is actually increased due to a reduction in\nthe inhibitory filters activity in the spine which in a non-sleep deprived person would stop extraneous impulses from reaching the brain.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://apmsurgery.com/Understanding_chronic_pain.html"
]
] |
|
p6hfo
|
in what ways are obama and romney politically similar?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p6hfo/eli5_in_what_ways_are_obama_and_romney/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3mw7vx"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Most of that idea stems from the fact that Romney's health care plan, when he was a governor, was similar to Obama's health care plan. Also, Romney is more \"moderate\" than many conservatives prefer. They are more different than similar in many other ways (abortion, taxes, etc.)\n\nI'm no expert, so I'm sure others can expound on this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3pees4
|
why don't we milk pigs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pees4/eli5_why_dont_we_milk_pigs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw5kkcn",
"cw5kng6",
"cw5n1zv",
"cw5onx1",
"cw5sfph"
],
"score": [
59,
23,
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Although pigs' milk is high in fat (around 8.5% compared to cows milk at 3.9%) and is an excellent source of nutrients, sows are very difficult to milk. They have around 14 teats compared to a cow's four, and they don't take very kindly to having them touched by humans.",
"Cows produce more milk than a pig does. Also, pigs are generally much more protective and dangerous animals than cows. ",
"The question is, does it taste any different? It sounds tricky to get, but that's all the more reason for Whole Foods to sell it in their gourmet section for an exorbitant price. Hell, they once sold asparagus water.",
"We also commonly milk goats and sheep. \n\nWhy we milk goats, sheep and cows, and NOT pigs, is that the first three are all ruminants: they digest grass, which humans cannot eat. Pigs' diets are very similar to humans - we can also eat the snakes, frogs, eggs, berries and roots which constitute the bulk of wild boar's food. We can keep larger numbers of pastoral animals with less effort than pigs, and by taking just the milk we are able to sustain ourselves without diminishing our herd. \n\nIn places where pigs are grown for food exclusively, without pastoral animals - such as Papua - pigs are often bled instead of milked, because it's easier to do, and it's the same idea: get some food from the animal without killing it. ",
"In addition to other answers:\nWe've spent a lot of time and effort breeding cows to be really, really dumb and docile. Cows don't think about much. \n\nPigs are smart. They're roughly as smart as most dogs, if not more. Pigs aren't so easy to get into a milking pen and get harnessed up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fmw9lr
|
what did martha stewart do and why was it bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fmw9lr/eli5_what_did_martha_stewart_do_and_why_was_it_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fl6d774",
"fl6dtiv",
"fl6dwwy",
"fl6lppb"
],
"score": [
4,
53,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"It’s called insider trading. You’re not allowed to sell stock, to your own advantage, when you have information that the product is gonna tank. Stupid but it is illegal",
"It was something called \"insider trading\", and it is illegal because it is in essence cheating people out of their money.\n\nThe idea is that someone decides to buy or sell stock based on information which isn't available to the general public. It might seem weird to be unable to make trades based on your own knowledge, but let me give you an example to make it more clear.\n\nSuppose you have a company which has some stock owned by the general public and some owned by top level executives. They launch a major new product they spent a lot of money producing, and as the final sales numbers come in for the year... wow, they aren't good. Consumers *hated* it and they lost a huge amount of money on their failed product.\n\nNow the executives know this information but they haven't released it to the world or their investors. The executives *know* the stock price is going to go down when people hear about this, so they decide to sell their stock at its current price and let those other suckers take the loss. See how using this \"insider\" knowledge is unfair and basically fraudulent?",
"Basically, if you have insider knowledge about how a company is doing, you can unfairly buy and sell stocks.\n\nThink of it like this, if you sell someone a stock that you know is soon going to lose a ton of value, you are committing fraud by tricking someone into buying something from you that will soon be worthless. It's sort of like selling someone a car that you know is defective.",
"Martha didn't do time for insider trading, she did time for lying about insider trading. Sort of like they were unable to get Al Capone on murder so they got him on tax avoidance.\n\nI'll say this, she did her time and got back to work. No tell all book, no tour of the talk shows, no whingeing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
tgztk
|
horoscopes, and how they're written.
|
Complete BS? If not, how does a horoscope author go from the position of the planets in the zodiac to suggestions about modifying behaviours?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tgztk/horoscopes_and_how_theyre_written/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4mj1d8",
"c4mjee4"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"Total BS. They're vague enough that they can apply to totally different types of people, but they're specific enough that when people read them, they think \"WOW THAT'S ABOUT ME!\"",
"They don't try to make it up - and I'm not arguing for the scientific validity here, but according to their own system, here is how horoscopes actually work: \n\n1. When you are born, the stars are in a certain position at the exact moment of your birth. You can go to a site like the German website Astrodienst, and it will calculate this out for you, and tell you which planets are in which houses and whatnot. Really experienced and math-savvy astrologers can actually calculate this out using math and tables, but there's no need for this now, unless you're an astrological Martha Stewart and you want to do it yourself.\n\n2. The stars are in a different position now, obviously. If an astrologer makes a chart for the present moment, he or she can then calculate how the planets have moved since the year you were born, and whether the position of any one of those planets, say in Ajdiv's example, the place where Jupiter is today makes an angle to Neptune, as it is placed in your chart. Squares - 90 degree angles, are usually bad, and are thought of as causing some sort of negative effect. Trines or sextiles - 30 degrees and 120 degrees I think, but don't quote me - they are more positive.\n\n3. Since obviously it is impossible to make individual star charts and publish them in newspapers for every person in town, newspaper astrology uses a watered down version of this. They compare the position of the present planets simply to fixed sun sign positions, rather than taking entire charts into account."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
57tvq2
|
why are the knee jerk and achilles reflexes important in walking?
|
I've tried googling it but for the life of me can't find the answer. Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57tvq2/eli5_why_are_the_knee_jerk_and_achilles_reflexes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8v9kxa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It took me a while to figure out what exactly your question was about. Figured it out.\n\nThe knee jerk, achilles reflex are all examples of what you call monosynaptic stretch reflexes. These are basically protective arcs of neurons that work on an unconscious level to regulate the tone of your muscles.\n\nIt works like this. First thing we got to do. Is switch off your brain. We're not looking at conscious effort here. That's the main thing to keep in mind.\n\nSay you're standing up and start to lean towards your right side due to gravity. The muscles of your spine on the left side start to lengthen and stretch like a rubber band. This is in a state where there is no muscle tone.\n\nThis stretch is detected by a specialized sensory system in every muscle, called the muscle spindle. The muscle spindle then sends this information through sensory neurons to the spinal cord. At the same level, your spinal cord immediately sends a motor impulse through a separate set of motor neurons.\n\nNow, normally your muscles contract when stimulated by alpha motor neurons. This works pretty well, but it's kind of like an all or none system. When the alpha signal is sent to the muscle, it contracts and the spindle relaxes completely, which stops the stimulation.\nIf this was the case, walking would be a terribly difficult task, because you'd essentially be see-sawing with every step you take.\n\nSo you have a second set of motor neurons, called gamma motor neurons, that work to keep the muscle spindle stretched, and ensure a continuous flow of motor innervation to the muscles to keep the muscle contracted. This continuous flow is called muscle tone, and comes from synergy of gamma neurons keeping the muscle spindle slightly stretched, which in turn causes the alpha neurons to fire off and contract the muscle.\n\nSo with that in mind, you can apply it to a situation like holding a box. Suppose you're given extra weight, the muscle spindles in your biceps receive this increase in load in the form of an increased stretch. They relay information to your spinal cord, and make your biceps contract appropriately to maintain that stretch level.\n\nAssuming the spindles don't work, the muscles will stretch too far in the other direction and tear. Also, if we didn't have this system, we would have to consciously think about moving a lot of muscles in the body every time we move.\n\nWhen doctors do a physical examination, the tone of your muscles tells you about the state of these neurons. The reflexes help tell you if the neurons are firing with enough energy or not (In this case though, the motor neurons are also regulated by other neurons outside this arc. So it's a little different.)\n\nTL;DR\n\nImagine a tiny stick which has a little bag in the middle, sitting inside every voluntary muscle under your control. That's a muscle spindle.\n\nWhen a muscle is stretched, this spindle senses it and sends the information to the second in command; the spinal cord, which immediately sends instructions back to the muscle to contract and prevent injury from occurring. In a nutshell, this is the muscle spindle reflex.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
r0qmb
|
why can't computers read a captcha?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r0qmb/why_cant_computers_read_a_captcha/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c41z0m8",
"c41z4e2",
"c41z8r4",
"c41zfk9",
"c41zgw4",
"c4204yz",
"c420j6j",
"c421cm8",
"c421jqp",
"c421qvr",
"c421qwq",
"c421ve6",
"c422n89",
"c422vbg",
"c422y0w",
"c4231dy",
"c423tbu",
"c42433q"
],
"score": [
114,
18,
28,
226,
3,
12,
14,
2,
2,
4,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't see letters like we do, they see shapes, and the distortion applied to the words makes it very hard for them to decode them.\n\nAlso, some simple captcha codes can be broken, but the most common one (Google's) cannot *yet*.",
"Current computer technology is a *lot* worse than a human brain at pattern recognition. It's only recently that computers have been able to read *non*-distorted text from images; once you start deliberately making it hard, most computers don't have a chance.",
"Computers don't understand text like humans do. We see familiar shapes and are trained from a young age to identify letters and words despite differences in the way they're drawn. Computers handle text by associating a code with each letter. Whenever a known code is encountered, depending on the context of what you're doing, it's typically translated into a glyph that shows the letter graphically. That graphical representation makes sense to humans using the computer while the codes behind them don't (at least to most users), and the opposite is true for the computer. They only understand text data as its encoded representation.\n\nWhen text is saved in an image of some kind, things are a bit different. This text is stored as part of an image that's entirely focused upon the graphical appearance of the letter rather than any sort of encoding that computers can understand as text. Fortunately, computers are pretty awesome and so we have character-recognition techniques that aim to look at a piece of graphical data and determine which (or whether any) letter codes it might be trying to represent.\n\nThe problem is that working out that a drawn letter represents the same thing as an encoded letter is a really difficult problem. We're good at vagueness - if you write the letter G a thousand times on a piece of paper, every single one will be subtly different and yet look pretty much the same to you. Computers aren't so good with vagueness though, so they'd see a thousand different variations that they somehow need to associate with each other and their knowledge of existing letters and character sets.\n\nCAPTCHAs leverage this to provide a problem that's easy for a human to solve and difficult for a computer to solve. There are lots of methods for computers to process CAPTCHAs (mostly leveraging artificial intelligence and heuristic techniques), but the amount of time and effort it takes for them to do so typically outweighs the benefits of doing so, and only provides minimal annoyance to legitimate users.",
"Fuck, *I* can barely read a captcha.",
"When we look at that image, we see what looks like text, alphabets perhaps, maybe numbers or a combination of both, our brain tries to figure out what is written based on previous knowledge and assumptions. \nOf course, a computer doesn't exactly see it, it processes the image, the way it works is basically because of what computers have always been and are today. Programmed machines, meaning it does exactly what you tell it to do, it has very little in the way of artificial intelligence built into it, and telling it to think different, learn and analyse on its own is a herculean task for the programmer, but for us humans, we have learned to be that way since the early days. \nSo, coming back to the problem, the computer cannot read it since, if there was a program developed to read captcha, it would have to be taught to: \n1. Separate the letters from each other \n2. understand all type of letters, small, big and all possible optical contortions of the same \nThis simply takes a shit ton load of time to be done.",
"Can we just do twenty seconds on how fucking terrifying those captchas are when it pronounces them if you can't read it?\n\nPS: Some websites captchas are amazing. I haven't been able to login to Myspace for years and years an- wait, this isn't a problem, nevermind.",
"The captcha you see is an image which is composed of pixels. Each pixel is a tiny square as small as your screen can make. Some of them are black and some of them are white. So when you see a letter 'e' in the captcha, it's actually made of something that looks like this:\n\n 000000000\n 00BBBBB00\n 0B00000B0\n 0B00000B0\n 0BBBBBBB0\n 0B0000000\n 0B00000B0\n 00BBBBB00\n 000000000\n\nBut of course a computer doesn't remember it all laid out like that, in the computer it's all strung together in one piece like this: \n\n 00000000000BBBBB000B00000B00B00000B00BBBBBBB00B00000000B00000B000BBBBB00000000000\n\nCan you still see the 'e'? Probably not. \n\nThis isn't the whole answer though. The real problem is that humans are really good at recognising patterns but computers have to be taught how to do it. The tricky part is that the weird stuff they do to your captcha is exactly the kind of thing that trips up a computer no matter how well you teach it but usually not so bad that a human won't be able to figure it out. ",
"Has anyone ever [submitted a site to DMOZ?](_URL_0_) Their Captchas are like the trivia under a Snapple lid: Sometimes inscrutable, but always fun.",
"They can't...\n\nyet...\n\n",
"Actually they can:\n\n_URL_0_ ",
"Here's the general idea of what makes captchas tricky. Hint: it's not just that image processing is hard.\n\nA computer would actually have very little trouble reading a screenshot of this comment, especially knowing the font and size in advance. After all, computers can only do what people teach them to do by writing a step-by-step process. And this step-by-step process is relatively simply: it's pretty easy to load this font into a program, find where each of the letters in this comment are (after all, they're all separated by whitespace), and check them against each one in the font pack until one is a perfect match. That's just basic matching, and that's easy. (That's a bit oversimplified, but the point stands: reading text when you already know how each character looks is pretty easy.)\n\nHowever, things get more tricky if the text isn't printed out the same way every time. The more variation there is, the more difficult pattern recognition is. For example, suppose I randomly inverted 10% of the pixels in that screenshot. Suddenly, both steps of our simple character identification process become a lot more difficult: it's harder to identify where characters start and end, because they might not be separated by whitespace anymore, and it's harder to identify what a character is, because 10% of its pixels are no longer accurate: we instead need to modify our process to guess where characters *probably* start and end, and to decide which letter each is *most likely* to be. However, a human would probably have very little trouble reading the text, because the brain is crazy impressive. There are many things that the brain can do where we have no idea how to write out that process step-by-step.\n\nSo, captchas try to capitalize on this as much as possible: they create text that humans should still be able to figure out, but for which it would be difficult to write a program. And all this comes down to clever ways of changing how text looks: they often smush all the characters together so that computers have a harder time figuring out where one stops and another starts, and often skew the text and draw unrelated lines over it and whatnot in order to make the output as seemingly inconsistent raw-data-wise as possible.\n\nOf course, any captcha *can* theoretically be beaten computationally. It's a race: as the captcha breakers develop new techniques to read, the captcha makers develop new techniques to make reading more difficult. But the main point is: captchas are text that is easy for people to read, since brains are impressive, but hard for computers to read, since coming up with a step-by-step process for reading is just so complicated.",
"Some of googles can be for sure. THere ARE programs you can buy, but they are constantly updated and you need to constantly buy the updates. There very expensive and they are used for people who mass make emails ect. Captcha is used to read out of date books so if there is an unknown word and so many people give the same answer it will be the same answers.",
"they can. there's a lot of capcha deciphering software out there\n\n\njust cause some of them don't have the software made yet doesn't mean it's not possible ",
"If you scan a page from a book onto your computer, it will not generate a document with editable text in it, only an image of the text.\n\nThis is okay for human reading, because all it requires is your eyes and brain. You wouldn't, however, be able to have the computer read it back to you, or search the text for a word, because it's not text, just an image.\n\nThat's where something called OCR comes in. It stands for \"Optical Character Recognition\". Basically, it's a technology that helps computers convert an image of text into actual text. i.e. *Understand* the data in the image. It does this by separating shapes and attempting to guess what letter, number, symbol, etc. each shape represents, and output it as the correct character. As OCR has advanced, more methods have been added to it. For instance, a lower case g might look like a 9 to a computer, or if it wasn't clear enough. But if the OCR software recognized the letters around it, it would see that the letter has GOT to be a g, because \"Ju99ling\" doesn't make much sense.\n\nNow, OCR isn't perfect: It makes mistakes on letters that it can't make accurate guesses on. It is a computer, after all.\n\nSo that's where CAPTCHA's come in: The idea of a CAPTCHA is to make a word (or sequence of characters) too difficult for OCR software to make accurate guesses, yet still easy enough that the human brain can.",
"A CAPTCHA is a test that is supposed to tell computers (machines) and humans apart. It can be anything that requires the knowledge of a human being. At the least it should require knowledge that a machine can't access right away.\n\nThese images with distored text are not sufficiant anymore as it is pretty easy to train a computer to recognize (even distorted) letters.\n\nSomething like *\"Which of the following three photos doesn't contain a cat\"* is far harder for a computer. The computer would have to really understand the sentence AND find the picture with no cat in it. For both it would need a huage database with a lot of knowledge. If it had that it might solve the question, but the next question could be something completely different like *\"Which shade of green looks more like grass?\"*",
"Imagine the letter L . You know what it is from years of repetition and seeing it written in a variety of ways. But how do you explain to a computer who only sees pixles what an L looks like? You can tell it that it needs to look for a vertical line, and then a 90 degree smaller line poking out of the bottom (in a simplified sense). But what if its written at an angle? Or the little line is crooked? What if you have an L with a line intersecting the middle? Is it now a T with a lip at the bottom? Or still an L? How thick was That intersecting line? Maybe it was thicker then the bottom lip? Or thiner? How do you take that into account when analyzing text? Now imago all the CAPTCHAS out tthere with hundreds of different patterns and different ways that people distort the text. Currently there is no way to KNOW what the Letters are. So you resort to matching the patterns of understood letters to what you see in the image box. And hope you have a close match. \n\nreCAPTCHAS are even harder since they use words. But the text is extremely distorted. Even if a human can't see 3/7of tthe letters. He should be able to pick out what the word is intended to be. So for a computer. They now need to reference an entire English dictionary and use spelling rules on top of analyzing the words. It just becomes a massive undertaking. I'm sure CAPTCHAS will be solved at. some point. But for now, the technical hurdles make for a \"best guess\" scenario and a lot of computing power that needs to be used. So spammers really need to WANT to crack a CAPTCHA. But most sites are safe since the benefits are marginal at best.",
"They can, I saw a video somewhere of one bot which does surprisingly well at reading Captchas and all other security images. Can't find it right now, but that thing was working pretty well.\n\n",
"This isn't a perfect analogy because you can accurately represent an image with a text editor but...\n\nOpen an image of your choice in a text editor. This is (for our purposes) what the computer sees. Looking at that, can you tell what the image is?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dmoz.org/public/suggest"
],
[],
[
"http://www.deathbycaptcha.com/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7zpi1i
|
what makes the parkland school shooting different from those before it? why is this one the straw that broke the camel's back?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zpi1i/eli5_what_makes_the_parkland_school_shooting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duppyty",
"duprbo7"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"1) Students were able to communicate what was going on live via their social medias. That dials the emotions of the event up by several degrees. \n\n2) More people died than is average for these kinds of events. \n\n3) The FBI and local police were warned but failed to act upon those warnings. ",
"Every shooting is a tragedy, but this one was a complete clusterfuck all around. The body count was high, everyone from those who knew the shooter to the FBI knew he was dangerous, but nothing was done and he still allowed to by a weapon. That’s also what made this one so bad. The basic safeguards that certain politicians talk about failed. Like I said, all shootings are tragic, but many weren’t as preventable as this one was. This was the result of a complete failure of a system put in place to keep us safe. Hell, even the school’s safety resource officer stayed outside the school. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5doz49
|
why do airlines charge extra for an overweight bag, but don't really care about weight of a passenger as long as they fit in 1 seat?
|
A little explanation goes a long way.
A person weighing 150 pounds with a bag that's 60 pounds (10 pounds over most airlines limits) for a total weight of 210 pounds has to pay an extra fee "because it costs more fuel etc." to carry that extra weight.
But a person weighing 250 pounds with a 40 pound bag doesn't pay a dime extra, even though their total weight on the airplane is 290 pounds, 80 pounds more than person A.
The same question applies if airlines limits are not 50 pounds, to show the example I had to put down a number and I picked 50.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5doz49/eli5why_do_airlines_charge_extra_for_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da677bm",
"da67o12",
"da67vty",
"da68i6g",
"da692jw",
"da6gkli"
],
"score": [
16,
11,
5,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because weighing passengers before they get on a plane would lead to massive public backlash. It's more of a PR hassle than it's worth.",
"Paying the airport workers medical bills after they throw out their backs lifting those overweight luggage pieces is the real concern the airlines have.",
"Because the airlines do not have a collective bargaining agreement with a union comprised of people who have to lift passengers and put them into seats. That's because you get yourself on and off the plane.\n\nThey do, however, have such an agreement with the baggage handlers unions, and part of that are restrictions on the weight of the bags they have to lift.",
"Because you carry your own body onto the plane. They have to pay their workers to lift your heavy bag.\n\nIt's not really the total weight the plane has to carry, it's the weight an individual worker has to lift.",
"One reason is that the weight limits are tied to workplace safety for baggage handlers. They are at much greater risk of getting injured by moving pieces over 50 lbs.",
"A number of reasons:\n\n* it is easier and less offensive to weigh bags than to weigh people\n* it puts an upper limit on the weight baggage handlers are expected to lift\n* it is a matter of space *and* weight...a lighter person still takes up a whole seat, but their extra bag will always take up more space\n* it is easier to change your packing habits than you body size"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
p0ux5
|
video game "lag" and what i can do about it
|
On my PS3, playing certain online video games has resulted in a very "laggy" experience. What causes it? Where along the internet connection does it occur (e.g. wireless network, me to the ISP, or an issue with the location of the destination server)? Finally, what can one do to prevent lag? Do you need a faster internet plan? Thanks for helping me out.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p0ux5/eli5_video_game_lag_and_what_i_can_do_about_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3ln64o"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Wireless can cause packets of data to be lost, which might cause a little bit of lag, so try to use a wired connection if possible.\n\nOften, it comes down to the location of the server. Being from the UK, when I play on a Uk game server I tend to get about 6ms of lag. Playing against people in the US I'd get at least 200. Try to find local games if possible.\n\nIf you have broadband internet of any speed, lag shouldn't be too bad, but make sure you've not got someone else on your home network using bandwidth. You can't play video games while torrenting files or streaming movies, basically.\n\nThis is me speaking from the perspective of a PC gamer where games are run on dedicated community owned servers. I'm not sure of the specifics of the PS3 online system, so there might be something involved there, too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5guqsh
|
how is the job market able to accommodate the increasing number of college graduates per year?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5guqsh/eli5_how_is_the_job_market_able_to_accommodate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dav6uh6",
"dav6zgp",
"dav7esk"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"By devaluing the value of a college degree. It's a form of inflation. It is basically considered at this point to be a staple of your education that you have some form of degree, as opposed to it being a noticeable achievement.\n\nIf everyone in your class got B's then you are noticeable for having gotten A's. If everyone in your class starts getting A's then you have to find a new way to stand out.\n\nThat is why you find plenty of people with 4 year degrees working jobs that certainly didn't need them.",
"In fact it is not. A large number of college graduates end up taking jobs that don't use their degree at all, or failing to get jobs. This is especially true for degrees that are thought-provoking but not very career-related, such as philosophy or history.",
"It's not the end-all answer but people retire and die. New businesses start. Not all graduates get jobs. That, at least, accommodates a decent percentage of graduates. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
172i7l
|
why our physics theories don't allow the galaxies seen in the hubble deep space gif to exist
|
I was watching [this](_URL_0_) gif (blows my mind), and near the end it says that some of those galaxies shouldn't exist according to our physics theories; why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/172i7l/eli5_why_our_physics_theories_dont_allow_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c81phuz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The mass of super sized galaxies is so great that they should, theoretically, not have the rotational energy to prevent collapse."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/k8OZr.gif"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
54zha2
|
why is "night shift mode" in ios 10 beneficial to my eyes when it tints the screen yellow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54zha2/eli5_why_is_night_shift_mode_in_ios_10_beneficial/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d869hf5"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"When your brain registers light it affects your body's natural rhythm. This is one of the reasons they suggest sleeping in a pitch black room. Your brain thinks it's still day and has a harder time falling asleep thereafter. Blue light has a lot of energy compared to red light, because light exists on a spectrum. The colors in the rainbow that are closer to red have less energy than those closer to blue. So, the best bet would be to not use electronics at all an hour before bed, but an okay compromise is filtering out the blue light so that your brain registers less light per say. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
dhwy0z
|
how did prospectors know what rivers and streams to look for gold in?
|
Did they just try random rivers until something showed up? Would an average person be able to use any modern or specialist techniques to track down a gold source?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dhwy0z/eli5_how_did_prospectors_know_what_rivers_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3rdt4i",
"f3rokxh",
"f3rwjxw",
"f3sopx1"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gold panners durring the cali gold rush looked for already known sources, and black sand. Black sand is mineral rich.",
"Amateur panners often look up historic mining/smelting sites and go down river from them, looking for other heavy materials (like quarts and black sand). Pulling a single, 10 gallon bucket of soil from the cracks in a river bed will generally net you some trace amount of gold. If you get nothing, you move to the next spot and try there. \n\n\nIf you use a sluice, you just dig out/shovel out the river soil directly on to it and look for the flakes as they appear. You should get some trace amount within five or six shovel fulls, and then you'll know if you're at the right spot.",
"Lots of people went looking for gold with no experience. Many just went to areas near where they had heard that gold had been found. Old hands new some signs such as black sand, but they were unlikely to hand out their knowledge.",
"Different elements and minerals have different characteristics such as how they're made, density, boiling/melting point, etc. These specific characteristics mean certain materials are often found near other certain materials of similar characteristics. If one material, that's hard to find, like gold, is usually found in a very common material, like quartz, then where you find one, you're likely to find the other."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9p9aua
|
how do garbage dumps contain trash or prevent further pollution?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9p9aua/eli5_how_do_garbage_dumps_contain_trash_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7zwu4n",
"e7zxofa"
],
"score": [
8,
7
],
"text": [
"They do not. Not in any perfect sense, anyway.\n\nAs for 'blow off' that is taken care of by 'eventually' burying the trash.\n\nIn theory, dumps are planned to avoid things like surface water and groundwater. However, plenty of effluents wash away from even well - placed and well - designed dumpsites. \n\nIn short, they are an ecological nightmare that constantly produce negative effects.",
"I'll address trash blowing away first. For that, landfills do their best by compacting trash as soon as possible after it is dumped and by putting up tall nets around the active part of the landfill to catch as much of what blows away as possible. This is not a perfect system and some stuff does blow away. The protection for groundwater is a lot better. Modern landfills will have a layer if heavily compacted clay at the bottom which is virtually water tight. Above that they will have a impermeable synthetic liner of some sort. Above that will be a stone drainage layer that routes any liquids that get to the bottom of the landfill to a collection system that removes it. All this prevents any contaminated liquid from leaving the landfill. Once the landfill is full there is a cap of compacted clay and synthetic liner placed on top to stop liquid from entering the landfill. There will also be groundwater monitoring wells located around the landfill that will detect any comtamination if the liner systems fail so it can be fixed and/or the contamination contained. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.